evaluation report of the unicef ghana education programme ... · unicef ghana education...

NOVEMBER 2017

Evaluation Report of the UNICEF Ghana Education Programme (2012–2017): A Capacity Building Perspective

Clement Adamba, Claire Nowlin, and Hannah Ring

American Institutes for Research

University of Ghana School of Education Leadership

Evaluation Report of the UNICEF Ghana Education Programme (2012–2017): A Capacity Building Perspective

November 2017

Clement Adamba,* Claire Nowlin,** and Hannah Ring**

**American Institutes for Research

*University of Ghana School of Education Leadership

1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Washington, DC 20007-3835 202.403.5000

www.air.org

Copyright © 2017 American Institutes for Research. All rights reserved.

Contents Page

Acronym List ................................................................................................................................ iii

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5

1.1. Evaluation Purpose, Objectives, and Scope......................................................................... 6

1.2. Evaluation Conceptual Framework...................................................................................... 6

1.3. Selection of CD Interventions and Thematic Areas ............................................................ 8

1.3.1. Teaching and Learning.............................................................................................. 9

1.3.2. Systems and Planning ............................................................................................... 9

1.3.3. Girls’ Education ........................................................................................................ 9

II. Evaluation Methodology ....................................................................................................... 10

2.1. Methods.............................................................................................................................. 10

2.2 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 11

2.3. Data Collection Approaches .............................................................................................. 12

2.3.1. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) ............................................................................ 12

2.3.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) ........................................................................... 12

2.3.3 School Observations ................................................................................................ 13

2.3.4. District Survey ........................................................................................................ 13

2.3.5. Teachers’ Survey..................................................................................................... 13

2.4. Sampling ............................................................................................................................ 14

2.5. Data Handling .................................................................................................................... 15

2.5.1. Qualitative Data Collection..................................................................................... 15

2.5.2 Quantitative Data Collection.................................................................................... 15

2.6. Coding and Analysis .......................................................................................................... 15

2.6.1. Qualitative Data ...................................................................................................... 15

III. Results.................................................................................................................................... 16

3.1 Capacity Development for System Strengthening and Planning at the District Level ....... 16

3.1.1 Relevance ................................................................................................................. 17

3.1.2 Effectiveness, Perceived Impacts & Sustainability ................................................. 19

3.2 Capacity Development for Teaching and Learning ............................................................ 24

3.2.1 CD Support Provided ............................................................................................... 24

3.2.2 Organisation and Implementation of CD Activities ................................................ 25

3.2.3 Relevance ................................................................................................................. 26

3.2.4 Effectiveness, Perceived Impacts, and Sustainability .............................................. 29

3.3 Capacity Development for Girls’ Education....................................................................... 34

3.3.1 CD Support Provided ............................................................................................... 35

3.3.2 Relevance ................................................................................................................. 36

3.3.3 Effectiveness, Perceived Impacts & Sustainability ................................................. 38

3.4 Cross-Cutting Findings ....................................................................................................... 41

3.4.1 While Trainings Resonated with Participants, They Lacked Immediate Relevance for Application and Use .................................................................................. 41

3.4.2 Trainings Focus on Capacity Development at the Individual level ......................... 42

3.4.3 Further Coordination is Needed, Particularly at the District Level ......................... 42

3.4.4 Concerns Expressed Regarding the Cascade Model of Training Delivery.............. 42

3.4.5 Monitoring ............................................................................................................... 43

3.4.6 Accountability and Ownership ................................................................................ 45

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 46

4.1 Relevance ............................................................................................................................ 46

4.2 Effectiveness ....................................................................................................................... 47

4.3 Impact/Sustainability .......................................................................................................... 48

4.4 Systems and Planning ......................................................................................................... 49

References .................................................................................................................................... 52

Appendix A. Resource Needs .....................................................................................................A1

Physical Resources.............................................................................................................. 1

Appendix B. Instruments ...........................................................................................................B1

Appendix C. Additional Tables from Quantitative Surveys ...................................................C1

Appendix D. UNICEF Ghana Education Programme 2012-2017: Output Mapping

Document .................................................................................................................................... D1

Appendix E. UNICEF Ghana Education Programme Evaluation: Terms of

Reference & Evaluation Criteria.................................................. .............................................E1

American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the

UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—iii

Acronym List

ADEOP Annual District Education Office Plan

AIR American Institutes for Research

CD Capacity Development

CFS Child-Friendly Schools

DAC Development Assistance Committee

DEOC District Education Oversight Committee

DTST District Training Support Team

EMIS Education Management Information System

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GEO Girls’ Education Officers

GES Ghana Education Service

GPEG Global Partnership for Education Grant

INSET In-Service Education and Training

KII Key Informant Interview

LfC Leadership for Change

LfL Leadership for Learning

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

PTA Parent-Teacher Association

SMC School Management Committee

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund


UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—1

Executive Summary United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Ghana contracted American Institutes for Research® (AIR®)1 to conduct an evaluation of capacity development (CD) interventions implemented

under UNICEF’s 2012–2017 Education Programme. The evaluation2 examined the effectiveness, relevance, perceived impacts, and sustainability of UNICEF-supported CD interventions during 2012-2016 in three thematic areas: teaching and learning, systems/planning, and girls’ education.

These interventions vary, ranging from: those oriented towards strengthening individual education functionaries/community members to be aware and perform specified activities (for

example teachers on child-friendly teaching and classroom management) to those which support a process of reflection, leadership, inspiration, adaptation and search for greater coherence between the different implementation units (for example Leadership for Learning and Leadership

for Change). This report presents the evaluation findings for Objective 1. In addition, the findings of the evaluation has also informed a standalone guidance note on monitoring and

evaluation systems and practices for CD interventions.

Inadequate capacity within the education sector in Ghana is often identified as a critical constraint in limiting improvements in student learning outcomes. Therefore, CD and related

interventions received considerable funding and attention from UNICEF in its current Education Programme (2012-17). UNICEF commissioned this evaluation to learn about the strengths and challenges of its previous CD activities and to inform future CD interventions in the education

sector. In addition, this evaluation is also intended to inform UNICEF’s future efforts to effectively evaluate CD interventions.

For this evaluation, AIR employed complementary qualitative and quantitative methods to answer key research questions about the relevance, effectiveness, perceived impacts, and sustainability of UNICEF supported CD interventions in the education sector. Given the

retrospective nature of the evaluation and relatively limited documentation available and the absence of a rigorous monitoring framework, the evaluation relied on triangulation of

information from a variety of sources, using a variety of methods including interviews, focus group discussions, survey, and school observations. However, the main limitation of the evaluation remained its retrospective nature, as the CD interventions of interest took place

between 2012 and 2016.

The evaluation findings indicate that respondents found the teaching and learning-focused trainings were well organised and implemented, and teachers consistently referenced applying the concepts learned from various trainings, in particular, the child-friendly schools (CFS)

training. While respondents described the application of these concepts more than those of other trainings inquired about by the evaluation team, they also acknowledged the constraints they

1 AIR worked with a subcontractor team from the School of Education Leadership at the University of Ghana to

design the research as well as collect and analyse data. 2 Along with the CD evaluation under discussion, additional work under the contract included development of three

strategy notes on the UNICEF Education Programme’s interest areas - public expenditures in education, barriers to

and bottlenecks in girls’ education, and efforts to strengthen district-level systems; and a review note on CD

interventions in available assessments and evaluations of different UNICEF supported activities during the

implementation of the current programme of support (2012-17).



faced in practice due to limited availability of child-friendly teaching and learning materials. In addition, findings also suggest that teachers (not only head teachers) need refresher trainings on

the proper use of the CFS checklist, hinting at the limitations of a one-off training model. However, district officers and teachers also emphasised that, while the teaching and learning

support received thus far has been valuable, teachers are also in need of CD support related to core subjects such as reading and math3, highlighting the need for trainings to keep pace with changing needs. Respondents also highlighted several challenges related to the timing,

organisation, and perceived sustainability of teaching and learning trainings, as some stated that teachers were not given enough time to apply one set of concepts in the classroom before being

trained on another. District- level respondents in particular highlighted the effectiveness and relevance of systems

strengthening and district planning-related trainings, especially describing numerous concepts from the Leadership for Change and Leadership for Learning modules and supportive

supervision trainings. Respondents described the methods used in these trainings as highly participatory, and they appreciated the materials they received to apply the concepts learned. However, they noted difficulty using the annual district education office plan (ADEOP) (which

they were trained on) as a realistic planning tool for CD activities. In addition, while efforts at coordination appear to be occurring at the national level amongst different partners, coordination

is not yet visible or flowing down particularly at the district level within the education system, posing challenges to ensuring that CD support is effective and evenly distributed to schools across Ghana.

Our evaluation found that CD interventions supporting girls’ education (most notably the

Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training) were perceived as highly relevant, and key concepts from this training are being applied in classrooms. However, similar and some additional factors inhibit the potential for long-term impacts and sustainability of CD interventions in the field of

girls’ education: the need for additional follow-up trainings on gender-responsive pedagogy, the lack of monitoring and accountability following CD interventions, the lack of parental and

community engagement in education, and the limited number of female teachers in certain areas. The research also produced several cross-cutting findings that spanned multiple thematic areas;

these included the fact that trainings were supply-driven rather than based off of formalised needs assessments, that trainings largely targeted individual capacity rather than organisational

or institutional levels of capacity within the education sector, and that the regional, district, and school levels lack effective coordination, monitoring, and accountability systems. We found a lack of consistent and rigorous monitoring taking place that specifically examines how the

concepts and tools acquired from each training are being used at schools and in classrooms, as well as whether these changes are having an impact on student learning outcomes. Additionally,

while respondents spoke positively about the trainings, the trainings they received often lacked immediate relevance in terms of how they could be practically applied, whether in district planning processes or in the classroom itself. Findings falling under the thematic areas as well as

those that were cross-cutting inform our recommendations for UNICEF.

3 UNICEF supported trainings with a focus on early grade reading and numeracy were initiated in 2016 and were not

included in the current evaluation as they did not meet the specified criteria.



The table below presents the trainings examined under the evaluation aligned with the capacity development entry points and the AIR team’s rating of how relevant, effective, and sustainable

the trainings were based on the data. It is important to qualify, however, that these ratings are subjective and lean heavily on the qualitative data, due to limitations of the teacher and district

surveys. Table 1. Framing the CD Evaluation Findings

Thematic

Area CD Activities Target Audience

Capacity

Point of Entry Assessment

Ind

ivid

ua

l

Org

an

isa

tio

na

l

Ins

titu

tio

na

l

Re

lev

an

ce

Eff

ec

tiv

en

es

s

Imp

ac

t

Su

sta

ina

bil

ity

Teaching and Learning

Child Friendly Schools

Head teachers, PTA X X X Highly relevant

Highly effective

Somewhat sustainable

Orientation on

Equity Issues in Education

Girls Education

Officers

X X X

Highly relevant

Somewhat effective

Limited or

unclear sustainability

Systems and planning

Bottleneck Analysis in ADEOP Design

Regional Planning and Statistics Officers

X X Somewhat relevant

Limited or unclear effective-

ness

Limited or unclear sustainability

Leadership for Learning/ Leadership for

Change

Head teachers, Circuit Supervisor, District and Regional Directors

X X X Highly relevant

Highly effective


Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills

Head teachers, Circuit Supervisors

X X X Highly relevant

Highly effective


Girl’s Education

Child-Centred and Gender-Responsive

Pedagogy

Teachers X X X Highly

relevant

Highly

effective

Somewhat

sustainable

Child-Centred Gender-Based Activities

District Schedule Officers (Training, PRO, Circuit

Supervisors, Heads)

X X Highly relevant

Highly effective

Limited or unclear sustainability

The evaluation report concludes with several key recommendations.

UNICEF should support an education-focused needs assessment at the district level to identify current capacity levels and gaps as well as the local resources available to

support future CD processes at schools and district offices.

Trainings should be designed that balance teachers’ needs in both cross-cutting teaching methodologies and concepts within core subjects such as Maths and English.



UNICEF should support and facilitate a formalised education coordination system

involving active stakeholders not only at the national level, but also at the regional and district levels, in order to ensure that CD support is evenly spaced and delivered across and within districts by education actors.

Weaknesses of the cascade model should be taken into consideration, and in order to mitigate them CD efforts should incorporate more cluster-based trainings that connect

teachers with training facilitators directly and also allow for frequent face to face interactions.

Educators should be connected with one another to promote peer learning: sharing best practices and troubleshooting issues as they apply new teaching techniques in the

classroom. Given resource constraints creating a platform on a tool already used regularly by educators (such as Whatsapp) could facilitate this connection and would only require UNICEF to support district officers in moderating discussions and providing advice to

particularly challenging topics.

UNICEF should strengthen structures such as the SMC and PTA so they become

functional bodies that can play a role in monitoring and strengthening accountability systems.

UNICEF should design future support that directly targets CD within the education sector

at the organisational and institutional environment levels

Develop a comprehensive M&E framework to ensure that the uptake and application of future CD efforts are monitored regularly at the regional, district and school levels.

Monitoring data should inform a feedback loop and contribute to the learning process around how CD is occurring amongst education stakeholders. It should also contribute to holding individuals accountable to their performance. Creating an accountability system

that is fully owned by stakeholders at all levels of the education system is key to ensuring long term capacity building and ultimately improving student learning outcomes.

Strengthening the use of monitoring and accountability mechanisms to inform the learning process also ensures that future trainings are iteratively developed and demand-driven.



I. Introduction United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Ghana contracted American Institutes for Research® (AIR®)4 to conduct an evaluation of capacity development (CD) interventions implemented under UNICEF’s 2012–2017 Education Programme. The evaluation5 examined the effectiveness,

relevance, perceived impacts, and sustainability of UNICEF-supported CD interventions during 2012-2016 in three thematic areas: teaching and learning, systems/planning, and girls’ education.

These interventions vary, ranging from: those oriented towards strengthening individual education functionaries/community members to be aware and perform specified activities (for example teachers on child-friendly teaching and classroom management) to those which support

a process of reflection, leadership, inspiration, adaptation and search for greater coherence between the different implementation units (for example Leadership for Learning and Leadership

for Change). This report presents the evaluation findings for Objective 1. In addition, the findings of the evaluation has also informed a standalone guidance note on monitoring and evaluation systems and practices for CD interventions.

As indicated in the Terms of Reference (TOR) for this evaluation (see Appendix E), the lack of

capacity within the education sector in Ghana is a critical constraint and is evident in weak service delivery; insufficient infrastructure and teacher skills; and poor management, accountability, and coordination structures. Despite not having an explicitly articulated strategy

for capacity-building, a review of expenditures between 2012-2016 also indicated that a large amount of UNICEF Ghana’s expenditures in the education sector during the current Country

Programme fell under the category of capacity building. Findings from a 2010 desk review of UNICEF-supported CD interventions globally also suggested the need for UNICEF to shift from an ad hoc response to capacity needs to a more systematic, holistic, and longer term approach to

CD. The critical capacity gaps in Ghana’s education sector coupled with UNICEF’s considerable investments in CD interventions and the need for a more systematic approach to CD were the

primary impetus for this evaluation.

4 AIR worked with a subcontractor team from the School of Education Leadership at the University of Ghana to

design the research as well as collect and analyse data. 5 Along with the CD evaluation under discussion, additional work under the contract included development of three

strategy notes on the UNICEF Education Programme’s interest areas - public expenditures in education, barriers to

and bottlenecks in girls’ education, and efforts to strengthen district-level systems; and a review note on CD

interventions in available assessments and evaluations of different UNICEF supported activities during the

implementation of the current programme of support (2012-17).



1.1. Evaluation Purpose, Objectives, and Scope The purpose of this report is to present the findings from AIR’s retrospective evaluation and

begins with examining the nature and relevance of UNICEF-supported CD interventions in the education sector. We

also present our findings on the effectiveness of such interventions from the

perspectives of CD-training participants and trainers and explored the perceived impacts and sustainability of these

interventions, with the goal of identifying factors that enabled or constrained the

ultimate impact of these interventions on teaching and learning outcomes. Box 1 highlight the questions which have guided

the evaluation. The findings from this evaluation will highlight lessons learned

from the CD interventions conducted under the 2012–2017 Education Programme and to refine future CD

activities implemented under UNICEF Ghana’s 2018–2022 Education Programme. This report identifies successes and areas for improvement, as well as the challenges stakeholders face in

both the delivery of trainings and their application in the classroom or regional or district offices. Findings were shared and recommendations were validated with Ghana Education Service (GES) and the Ministry of Education, as well as other relevant education stakeholders in Ghana during a

validation workshop held in October 2017 in Accra.

The report begins by discussing the evaluation framework and the methods used to conduct the

qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. We then present the evaluation results, which are organised by the three thematic areas of focus —teaching and learning, systems and planning, and girls’ education—and the evaluation criteria, which are explored in detail in the

following section. Finally, we provide recommendations for future CD interventions within the education sector in Ghana.

1.2. Evaluation Conceptual Framework The starting point of the evaluation is that it attempts to evaluate UNICEF supported programmatic interventions through a CD lens; and not an implementation evaluation of a CD strategy for the education sector. UNICEF supported CD interventions vary, ranging from: those

oriented towards strengthening individual education functionaries/community members to be aware and perform specified activities (for example teachers on child-friendly teaching and

classroom management) to those which support a process of reflection, leadership, inspiration, adaptation and search for greater coherence between the different implementation units (for example Leadership for Learning and Leadership for Change). Capacity development as a

strategy and an end in itself was not prioritized by the education programme.

In the absence of an overarching CD approach and strategy, the evaluation utilises the UNDP capacity development framework (UNDP Capacity Assessment Points of Entry; see Figure 1

Box 1: Guiding evaluation questions

Relevance

To what extent are the CD-related interventions relevant

to and appropriate for achieving the desired results?

Are the choices of interventions and methods

appropriate and responsive to the needs of the sector?

Do CD interventions target the appropriate individuals,

organizations, and/or policies? Effectiveness

What changed as a result of the CD interventions?

What has been learnt along the way that might be of use

when carrying out future capacity building work? Perceived Impacts & Sustainability

Did CD activities have an impact on the performance of

the participating individuals, organizations, and

institutions?

Did CD interventions result in sustainable change in

individual behaviour or practice?



[UNDP 2008]) and the evaluation criteria from the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as the underpinning

conceptual framework.

Figure 1: UNDP Capacity Assessment Points of Entry

Figure 2 shows the full conceptual framework for the evaluation: the three DAC criteria framing the research (effectiveness, relevance, perceived impacts, and sustainability); the UNDP’s three

points of entry for capacity assessment (individual capacity, organisational capacity, and institutional environment); and the three thematic areas we selected for investigation (teaching and learning, systems and planning, and girls’ education). While most of the UNICEF-supported

CD interventions target individuals and organisations and, therefore, our findings focus on these levels, we also discuss the broader institutional environment, particularly in the context of girls’

education, for which societal and cultural norms are especially relevant.



Figure 2: Full Conceptual Framework for Evaluation of CD Interventions

1.3. Selection of CD Interventions and Thematic Areas The evaluation team reviewed a mapping document that identified the UNICEF-supported CD interventions that were implemented across 20 districts in Ghana from 2012 to 2016 (see

Appendix D), and followed a set of criteria for selecting clusters of interventions for the evaluation. The criteria for selecting the thematic clusters of CD interventions are listed below:

Interventions are not currently covered by existing reviews and assessments. Interventions have activities targeting at least two levels (enabling environment,

institutional/community, and individual). Interventions involve training and other CD dimensions. Maturity of interventions.

Interventions cover a diversity of stakeholders at the national and subnational levels. Interventions include activities implemented at national and subnational level.



Using the aforementioned criteria and mapping document, we identified three thematic areas in which to investigate CD interventions for this evaluation: teaching and learning,

systems/planning, and girls’ education. We summarise these thematic areas below.

1.3.1. Teaching and Learning

First, we examined CD activities related to teaching and learning, recognizing their importance

to ultimately improving student learning outcomes. We explored the cascade model of training delivery from the perspectives of national- and district-level training facilitators and teachers, in addition to specific trainings related to child-friendly schools (CFS), child-friendly and gender-

responsive pedagogy, supervision, and leadership. We spoke to teachers and head teachers to understand the learning outputs from the trainings, the perceived influence of the trainings on classroom instruction, and whether teachers believed specific trainings on child-centred practices

and gender-responsive pedagogy had changed teacher behaviours in the classroom and school environment.

1.3.2. Systems and Planning

Second, we explored UNICEF-supported systems strengthening and planning through trainings

such as “Leadership for Change,” the bottleneck analysis, and reviewing roles and responsibilities. We spoke to individuals at the national, regional, district, and school levels about their roles and responsibilities, lines of communication, resource allocation, and

coordination with various education stakeholders. We placed particular emphasis on understanding districts’ capacity to develop Annual District Education Office Plans (ADEOPs),

which emerged as a key area of interest during inception meetings and was also supported by the bottleneck analysis training. We also explored issues of accountability in implementing the practices learned in trainings, as well as perceptions regarding the sustainability of CD

interventions at the district level.

1.3.3. Girls’ Education

Third, because girls’ education is a key area of focus in UNICEF’s education programming, we investigated how teachers are being trained in gender-sensitive pedagogy and how they are applying these lessons in the classroom. In addition, we explored the ways in which regional and

district girls’ education officers (GEOs) are applying the principles from targeted trainings on equity issues in education and transferring knowledge to others in their offices. The interviews

we conducted for this thematic area provided important insights into the barriers girls continue to face in accessing education, as well as recommendations for how these barriers can be addressed in future CD programming.

Given that the district is the locus of most training interventions, we also believe it is helpful to

present a diagram of the actors operating from the district to the school level who were covered through the different training interventions. While regional officers benefited from select CD interventions covered in this evaluation, the majority of recipients of CD support within the three

thematic areas discussed were district officers and individuals at the school levels. Figure 3 presents these actors.



Figure 3: District Education Office Structure

II. Evaluation Methodology For this evaluation, we employed complementary qualitative and quantitative methods to answer

key research questions about the effectiveness, relevance, perceived impacts, and sustainability of CD interventions in the education sector. Data were collected between January and March, 2017. The evaluation is necessarily retrospective, as the interventions of interest took place

during UNICEF’s 2012–2017 Education Programme. Given the relatively limited documentation available and the absence of a rigorous monitoring framework for UNICEF-supported CD

activities, the evaluation required triangulation of information from a variety of sources, using a variety of methods, which are explained in detail in the “Methods” section that follows. The limitations of our approach are further explored in the “Limitations” section.

2.1. Methods

We employed four methods to collect data:

1. Focus group discussions (FGDs): Ten FGDs were carried out with school management

committees (SMCs), teachers, and students at both case study schools, as well as with District Training Support Team (DTST) members in the two evaluation districts.

2. Key informant interviews (KIIs): Twenty-five KIIs were conducted with key informants at the school, district, regional, and national levels. The national level refers to respondents from GES in Accra and UNICEF, as well as individuals with expert

knowledge of issues surrounding girls’ education in Ghana.

3. School observations: Six observations were completed in three randomly selected

academic classes at each of the two case study schools.

4. Surveys: Two surveys were administered: a district- level survey with 40 schedule officers across 8 UNICEF-supported districts and a teacher survey with 100 teachers

across 10 UNICEF-supported districts.



Table 1 presents the location, method, and respondent type for the field-based data collection.

Table 1: Location, Method, and Respondent Type for Data Collection

2.2 Limitations The greatest limitation of this evaluation is its retrospective nature. While retrospective studies (or post-implementation studies) are valuable for identifying potential reasons for past programme successes and challenges and the lessons learned from programme implementation

(USAID, 2014), they do have some limitations that are important to acknowledge. Namely, retrospective studies conducted without prospective studies of programme processes are limited

in their ability to determine programme impacts because of limited baseline (and/or counterfactual) data (Gertler, Martinez, Premand, Rawlings, & Vermeersch, 2011). While retrospective evaluations can be very useful for learning (as is the intended purpose of this

evaluation), they are not necessarily well suited for monitoring or accountability purposes.

The evaluation was also further hindered by lack of available monitoring and programme documentation on the trainings and implementation process during the 2012-16 timeframe and as such needed to heavily rely on respondent’s ability to recall. Depending on the length of time

between when programme implementation occurred and when the evaluation is conducted, retrospective studies can suffer from recall bias, as respondents are unable to remember critical

events or factors that shaped implementation processes (Bamberger, Rugh, Church, & Fort,

Location Method Respondents

Districts Survey Planning, budget, and statistics officers, circuit supervisors, other schedule officers, and DTST members

Schools Survey Teachers

District Office,

Savelugu- Nanton

KII Inclusive education coordinator (pilot), training officer, girls’

education coordinator, ECD coordinator, statistics officer, and circuit supervisor

FGD DTST

Case Studies:

School 1 and School 2

FGD SMCs, teachers, students (one per school + two pilots)

KII Head teachers, curriculum leaders (two per school)

School observations

Classrooms (three per school)

Northern Regional Office

KII Planning officer and girls’ education coordinator

Builsa North District Office

KII District director, girls’ education coordinator, circuit supervisor, and planning officer

FGD DTST

Upper East Regional Office

KII Girls’ education coordinator, planning officer, and statistics officer

Accra KII Right to Play, independent gender practitioner, girls’ education unit director and programme officer, TED director



2004). Indeed, because of the rather lengthy recall period during which numerous UNICEF-supported CD trainings were provided, the evaluation team observed that teachers and education

officials could not always recall the specific details of the training(s) they had participated in.

Despite these limitations, retrospective studies are strengthened by triangulating individual accounts with those of other respondents; by collecting data from several different respondent types, using a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods, we have done our best to

counteract this challenge. On the quantitative side, while we were able to reach 10 districts (and 10 schools per district) to achieve decent variation in our survey sample, the sample size is still

very small, and this approach yielded only descriptive statistics. Because a proper impact evaluation using experimental or quasi-experimental methods was not possible, we are not able to make any statements about the impacts of CD interventions. Further, the relatively small

sample of schools made it difficult to draw meaningful comparisons across districts. Finally, because both quantitative and qualitative instruments covered a range of CD activities, we made

some sacrifices in terms of the depth of information we were able to collect. Related to this point, we were able to achieve greater depth through the qualitative methods which resulted in an inevitable imbalance of qualitative and quantitative findings on certain topics.

2.3. Data Collection Approaches

2.3.1. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)

We interviewed key informants who had expert knowledge about the UNICEF Ghana Education

Programme or a topic related to the programme—selected on the basis of their involvement in UNICEF-supported trainings—at the school, district, regional, and national level about perceived gaps and strengths in CD interventions. KIIs also provided insights into leadership, management,

and accountability realities in their day-to-day responsibilities in order to inform UNICEF Ghana’s new education programme strategy.

2.3.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

FGDs are guided discussions with a group of purposively selected individuals. FGDs provide a

context in which participants feel comfortable and empowered to discuss the research topics with peers and carefully trained facilitators. We conducted FGDs with DTST members in both Savelugu-Nanton and Builsa North to learn specifically about the training-of-trainer model that

is used to deliver CD practices to head teachers and teachers. We also conducted FGDs with the SMC, a group of teachers, and a group of students at each case study school in Savelugu-Nanton.

This gave us another perspective on the experiences of teachers at the school level when participating in the training and helped in determining whether students and SMCs were aware of subsequent new practices being implemented in the classroom or school setting.



2.3.3 School Observations

School observations allowed us to examine the child-friendliness of schools and the extent to which teachers were implementing the practices learned in the CD trainings, specifically in the areas of child-centred and gender-responsive pedagogy. We conducted six observations in

randomly selected academic classes at two case study schools to explore how the school environment facilitates teaching and learning, using a previously piloted and validated

instrument that measures child-friendly and gender-equitable teaching practices. The observation instrument was designed to assess the child-friendliness and gender equity of the classrooms, and is included in Appendix B.

2.3.4. District Survey

The district survey was administered to the members of the DTST, as well as planning, schedule,

budget, and statistics officers in eight UNICEF-supported districts. The topics covered in this survey included the following:

District office management structure

District office staffing and resources

ADEOPs (planning procedures, timing, staff involved, and consultations with circuits/clusters)

CD training design and delivery (focused on teaching and learning)

CD trainings received (focused on systems/planning and girls’ education)

Post-training monitoring

2.3.5. Teachers’ Survey

The school-level survey was administered to the head of the school or a designated teacher. The questions covered aspects of the following:

School management

School staffing and pupils (e.g., role of teachers and students, teachers’ qualifications,

capacity building activities, enrolment, attendance, and progression)

School facilities/resources (e.g., school characteristics including boards, toilets,

furniture, and books)

Teacher aspirations and participation in self-capacity-building efforts

Impressions of trainings (e.g., content, structure, delivery mechanism, timing)

Challenges in implementing training practices

Table 2 identifies the UNICEF programme (see Appendix E for an overview) outputs that correspond to the three thematic areas identified for the evaluation—teaching and learning,

systems and planning, and girls’ education—as well as illustrative UNICEF-supported CD activities that support these thematic areas and outputs. Note that most of the illustrative

trainings included below support more than one output and thematic area.



Table 2: UNICEF Outputs and Trainings per Thematic Area

Thematic Area UNICEF Output Illustrative Trainings

Teaching and Learning Output 22 Child-Friendly Schools

Output 20 Orientation on Equity Issues in Education

Output 22 Child-Centred Gender-Based Activities

Systems and Planning Output 22 Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills

Output 22 Leadership for Learning

Output 21, Output 22 Leadership for Change

Output 21 Bottleneck Analysis in ADEOP Design

Output 20 Roles and Responsibilities

Girls’ Education Output 22 Child-Centred Gender-Based Activities

Output 22 Child-Centred and Gender-Responsive Pedagogy

2.4. Sampling The AIR team used a combination of consultative meetings, guiding thematic areas of interest for the evaluation, and Education Management Information System (EMIS) data to select

districts for the qualitative research. After consultation meetings with UNICEF and key stakeholders from the Ministry of Education and GES, the evaluation team identified the districts

that would fall under the evaluation on the basis of the presence or absence of CD interventions and the length of time the district had received support from UNICEF. The team also wanted to ensure that the districts received funding for activities that fell under the three identified thematic

areas (teaching and learning, systems/planning, and girl’s education). The excel mapping document (see Appendix D) informed this process. After narrowing the options through the

mapping document we then selected a high- and a low-performing district (based on key EMIS data) from two separate regions to maximise the diversity of our qualitative sample and enable us to collect in-depth information in each district. The districts subsequently chosen for the

qualitative component of the evaluation included Savelugu-Nanton in the Northern Region, and Builsa North in the Upper East Region:

Savelugu-Nanton in the Northern Region was selected because of its long history of UNICEF support (dating back to 2006) and because it received the full package of UNICEF-supported CD interventions in education,6 starting in 2014. Within the Northern

Region, Savelugu-Nanton is the highest performing of the UNICEF-supported districts in terms of primary completion rate and performance in the English language, according to

EMIS data.

Builsa North in the Upper East Region also received the full package of UNICEF-supported CD interventions in education, starting in 2014. However, unlike Savelugu-

Nanton, Builsa North is the lowest performing of the UNICEF-supported districts in terms of primary completion rate and performance in the English language in the Upper

East Region, according to EMIS data.

6 The full package refers to the interventions included under Output 17–Output 23 of UNICEF’s 2012–2017

Education Programme, identified in the mapping document provided by UNICEF Ghana , which is annexed.



For the quantitative component of the evaluation, the survey targeted 10 purposively selected UNICEF districts7 to explore variations in experiences and impressions of UNICEF-supported

interventions across a range of geographic locations. After selecting the districts the team then randomly selected schools in each district. This approach ensured the widest coverage possible,

given the budget and time constraints of the evaluation. After careful consideration of options and on the basis of the University of Ghana’s experience conducting similar studies, a sample size of 100 schools based on equal sample allocation to 10 of the UNICEF districts (10 schools

per district) and 100 teacher interviews (one per school) was deemed sufficient.

In addition to the 100 teacher surveys across 10 UNICEF-supported districts, we developed a

district-level questionnaire (with similar content to that of the qualitative KII protocol) that we administered in 8 UNICEF-supported districts (the 10 districts selected for the teacher survey minus Savelugu-Nanton and Builsa North). We administered this questionnaire (which had a

combination of closed- and open-ended questions) to a total of five district officials in each of the 8 district offices, for a total of 40 district-level surveys. The teacher and district surveys can

be found in Appendix B.

2.5. Data Handling

2.5.1. Qualitative Data Collection

The evaluation team collected qualitative data in the Northern Region and Upper East Region.

Wherever possible, one field researcher was responsible for interviewing or facilitating, while the second researcher had primary responsibility for recording responses. Researchers took detailed notes and also recorded all interviews and FGDs on portable digital recorders. At the

end of each day, the field researchers transcribed the handwritten field notes into Microsoft Word documents, translating the material where necessary. Researchers used audio recordings to

supplement and validate the written transcriptions and translations.

2.5.2 Quantitative Data Collection

The evaluation team administered both the teacher and district surveys between February and

March of 2017. As is the case with most surveys, the evaluation team encountered a few minor challenges during data collection. In particular, some districts in Upper Denkyira West and

Afram Plains North were not notified by the GES in advance that our teams were coming, which made it slightly more difficult to make arrangements to administer the surveys in these areas. In the Upper Denkyira West district, a number of the head teachers and DTST members were

participating in district- and circuit- level sporting activities and were not available initially to be interviewed. This briefly delayed the data collection process.

2.6. Coding and Analysis

2.6.1. Qualitative Data

Lead researchers developed a descriptive coding scheme linked to the above evaluation framework, with specific reference to themes of interest and research questions. The first step in

7 The districts covered by the survey include Builsa, Savelugu Nanton, Garu -Tempane, Lambussie Karni, Wa East,

Komenda-Edina-Eguafo, Upper Denkyira West, Kwahu North (Afram Plains), Upper Manya Krobo, and Karaga



analysing qualitative data is to develop a coding structure that helps to systematically categorise information. The evaluation team began with the analytic framework of the evaluation (teaching

and learning, systems/planning, and girls’ education) to assess the concept of CD. These themes formed the coding structure that we used to categorise the raw data from interviews and focus

groups into sub-themes, to inform the primary findings. The evaluation team defined each theme and sub-theme to ensure consistency across coders and over time, and coded the data as presented. The researchers then loaded the coding scheme and the transcripts into the qualitative

data analysis software package (NVivo 11). Coding in NVivo is a manual process based on careful reading of each piece of data (in this case, interview responses and other notes) and

subsequent selection of appropriate code(s) to describe these data. Once properly coded, these data can be analysed in different ways prior to producing written outputs.

Quantitative Data

Quantitative data were analysed using Stata and Excel to generate descriptive statistics.

Unfortunately, because of the large number of open-ended questions on both surveys, analysis took longer than anticipated. The tables presented were produced using Stata by doing two-way cross-tabulations with frequencies and row percentages. Please see Appendix B for additional

tables, not included in the body of this report, from the school-level survey.

III. Results Our findings on the effectiveness, relevance, perceived impacts, and sustainability of CD

interventions are presented below according to the three thematic areas: teaching and learning, systems and planning, and girls’ education. In each of the thematic areas, as well as in our findings that are cross-cutting, we present findings identified through triangulation of survey and

interview data. Where possible, we note areas of convergence or divergence between data sources.

3.1 Capacity Development for System Strengthening and Planning at

the District Level This section highlights evaluation findings on the CD support provided to district officers and head teachers in the area of systems and planning. The trainings that fall under this focus area

and are discussed by respondents include Leadership for Change/Leadership for Learning8; Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills; and Bottleneck Analysis in ADEOP Design This

section also examines respondent perceptions regarding the involvement of school communities in CD efforts, as well as the effectiveness of processes such as communication and coordination, which are key to a strong education system. Respondents discussed the trainings they received to

improve their leadership and organisational performance, providing insights into the effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability of this support. In this section, we begin by

presenting findings related to relevance. We then discuss the effectiveness and perceived impact and sustainability of the systems- and planning-related trainings.

8 Leadership for Change was delivered to GES management in order to strengthen management skil ls, while Leadership for Learning was delivered to Circuit Supervisors and Head Teachers in order for them to understand

their roles in promoting learning.



3.1.1 Relevance

The majority of district officers highlighted the relevance of systems-focused trainings to their roles and to the ultimate focus on creating an enabling environment for teaching and learning. Respondents typically highlighted the methods used in trainings as highly participatory, and they

appreciated the materials they received to apply the concepts learned. When asked in the district survey whether they still had the materials received during trainings, 23 of 27 officers stated that

they still had them. Officers also indicated that the trainings were appropriate to available resources. In the district survey, 20 of 28 officers indicated that they required specific materials in order to apply lessons from the trainings; of the 20 officers, 15 stated that they currently had

these required materials. Furthermore, respondents at the school and district level noted that UNICEF or the district office appropriately targeted training participants, either requesting specific individuals or describing the profile of person who should receive the invitation letter.

The following paragraphs present additional findings related to the relevance and overall appropriateness of systems and planning-focused CD trainings at the district level.

3.1.1.1 Bottleneck Analysis to inform ADEOP development and planning processes

While respondents only highlighted strengths regarding the training on Bottleneck Analysis to inform the development of the ADEOPs at district level, they also raised a larger question regarding the relevance and limited use of the district plan development process in identifying

training needs. Respondents at the district offices cited using informal needs assessments and routine monitoring in order to determine the kind of training needs typically included in

ADEOPs. A respondent from UNICEF agreed, describing existing needs assessments as “ad hoc” rather than thorough and formalised. District officers also frequently cited the key role that circuit supervisors played in identifying teacher needs through their routine monitoring visits. A

member of the DTST in Savelugu-Nanton explained: “We normally do monitoring and supervision; as part of that you observe teaching and learning, [and] through that you identify

some shortcoming and some challenges across both.” At the school level, one head teacher mentioned that district officers did not consult with them on the areas in which additional training was needed. Most school-level survey respondents (52.8%) indicated that district

education officers identified the need for training, as did head teachers (17.5%).

One schedule officer in Savelugu-Nanton linked the identification of training needs to the ADEOP design process, explaining that they made an effort to look at the number of in-service education and trainings (INSET) held in a certain area to inform which trainings were placed in

the ADEOP. Despite this, district officers noted challenges in developing realistic ADEOPs based on time and existing resources, which prevented the ADEOPs from being valuable,

practical resources when planning and implementing activities. One officer in Builsa North explained: “We turn to be over-ambitious in our plans . . . most of the activities in the ADEOP, we can’t implement.”

3.1.1.2 Leadership for Learning (LfL) and Leadership for Change (LfC)

Respondents indicated that the LfL/LfC trainings were directly relevant to facilitating effective teaching and learning, and referenced the training methods used as key strengths of the training. Survey respondents consistently referenced the use of handbooks, the practical pedagogy used,

and the authority of the trainer on the issues as positive aspects of the training. Two respondents in interviews also emphasised the activity-based focus of this training and the importance of



“doing practically” as positive aspects of this LfL training. Table 3 presents district survey responses regarding the methods used by the LfL trainers by percentage of 22 total responses.

Table 3: Methods Used by Leadership for Learning Trainers

Did the training involve this? Yes (%) No (%)

Activities requiring participation. 100 0

Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts. 100 0

Trainer sought feedback. 100 0

Trainer emphasised certain concepts. 100 0

Trainer was engaging. 100 0

n=22

3.1.1.3 Supportive Supervision

District officers explained that the supportive supervision training was very relevant and appropriate to their work. One respondent in Builsa North said: “The concept of supervision, I use it much. It is something that they appreciate much.” Responses to the survey highlighted several

positive aspects of the training, including building a cordial relationship with the school community and the strategies learned to assist them in supporting their teachers “to put their best.”

Again, survey respondents identified the practical pedagogies and learning materials provided to participants as positives. Several respondents also referenced a field observation exercise and the resourcefulness of facilitators as positives. Respondents to the district survey also provided input

on the methods used in the supportive supervision training, presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Methods Used by Supportive Supervision Trainers







n=21

3.1.1.4 Need for More Targeted CD Support to Strengthen School-Community Linkages

Respondents at all levels, including students, described low or inadequate parental involvement in school activities, despite UNICEF-supported trainings that encouraged SMC and Parent-Teacher

Association (PTA) members to play an active role in making their school child-friendly. This suggests that further CD support needs to target school communities to strengthen structures at the

school and community levels. One respondent in the Rashidiya Primary School SMC stated that they had never received a training. Two affirmed that they had received trainings, with one commenting: “There are some few workshops we have attended. At the workshop we were taught

how to identify problems and how to see to it.” Although the SMC members at Pong Tamale Experimental School mentioned sporadic trainings provided by non-governmental organisations

(NGOs), they did not discuss any trainings related to UNICEF-supported areas. Despite this, they were familiar with the concept of CFS—suggesting that teachers at the school or perhaps another



NGO had reviewed the definition of a child-friendly school with them. One SMC member at Rashidiya Primary School described this:

We were taught how to ensure child friendly to school environment, run home, because their parents don’t give them money to go to school so we were taught how to talk to those parents to stop that behaviour we were also advised to

partner with the school authority to put up play equipment or talking walls so that it can attract the pupils to go to school.

Many respondents expressed the belief that school communities in general, SMCs, and PTAs

needed to play a more active role in supporting their children, as well as holding teachers accountable for their attendance and performance. One officer in Savelugu-Nanton said that communities could fill a critical role in monitoring, especially in the absence of district officers

who lacked fuel to reach schools: “We are telling the community people, the school belongs to you; they should monitor the children.”

3.1.2 Effectiveness, Perceived Impacts & Sustainability

Overall, district-level respondents had a difficult time recalling substantive information from

trainings they received on bottleneck analysis in ADEOP design, and also indicated that ADEOPs were perhaps not being used as intended as an integral part of their planning and

monitoring processes. However, officers provided more input on the core concepts they learned in the trainings on leadership for change and supportive supervision, and spoke positively about the impact that trainings had had on both their and head teacher behaviours, indicating that the

immediate relevance of trainings to their work had greater perceived impact. Further, respondents also flagged several challenges in communication and coordination which needed to

be addressed to ensure that CD interventions were effective and sustained.

3.1.2.1 ADEOPs Development and District Functioning

UNICEF—in addition to other funders and NGOs—plays a critical role in encouraging districts to plan annual activities through the ADEOP development process. Officers in Builsa North

explained that the ADEOP process began with individual schedule officers, who planned and then submitted their activities to the planning officer for discussion. One respondent mentioned

that officers are provided with forms on which to describe the specific activities they would like to implement, as well as how much each activity should cost. A district review and planning meeting would then take place to validate the activities identified to achieve ADEOP targets.

This meeting would involve a broader group, among others. District survey respondents largely corroborated this account of the stakeholders involved in the planning process: 22 of 33 district

officers surveyed stated that the ADEOP planning process typically took between 2 weeks and 1 month; six described it as taking 1 to 3 months; and five said the process lasted between 7 months and 1 year. A majority of district survey responses, as well as respondents interviewed in

Savelugu-Nanton, stated that this planning process had not changed over the past 2 years, although the training on bottleneck analysis in ADEOP design took place within this period. One

respondent from the Northern Region said the bottleneck analysis training covered “the planning procedure and how to set targets and activities and things like that.” A respondent from Savelugu-Nanton added that the aim of the training was also to help identify specific activities to

address current problems.



UNICEF also supported a training intended to strengthen processes at regional and district offices that focused on roles and responsibilities. Few respondents, however, recalled details

about the training, indicating that like the ADEOP training, without any follow-up, this one-off training was not immediately relevant and did not result in consistent application of concepts by

participants. Those who had participated in the training indicated that it was delivered centrally (in Kumasi) and then deployed locally to UNICEF focal districts. Although according to the mapping document the training was on girls’ education, according to a key informant from the

Upper East Regional Office, the roles and responsibilities training focused on the District Education Oversight Committee (DEOC) and how it was supposed to function. According to this

same informant, “When you go to meet the DEOC you realise they don’t even know what their role is supposed to be.” Findings highlight the fact that there is a need to clarify roles and responsibilities within the education system, particularly as districts adjust to the decentralisation

process. Doing so will ensure that structures such as the DEOC and the SMC, as well as officers at the regional district levels, are aware of and capable of fulfilling their responsibilities.

ADEOPs Used Primarily To Request External Funding

Respondents did not consistently express confidence in the use of ADEOPs as tools that did

more than present funding needs to the donor community. The reliance on donor funding for educational activities means that the ADEOP functions primarily as a tool for donors and NGOs

operating in the districts, and not as a sustainable internal planning tool that is consulted regularly by districts officers. One respondent in Savelugu-Nanton mentioned that the district office incorporated items specific to relevant NGOs’ yearly areas of focus into the ADEOP when

it was developed,9 and in both districts we heard that these documents were not consulted unless a donor was involved:

Here we don’t generate any income; our funds come from donor partners or government. If we don’t get any funds from people then it means the ADEOP will be there, but we will not be using it. Most of the time donor partners will come

and demand for the ADEOP, then they will look at that and decide on areas they want to support.

—Schedule Officer, Savelugu-Nanton

Officers in each district emphasised that lack of funding was a key constraint in carrying out activities that fall under the ADEOP and their daily responsibilities. One officer in Savelugu-

Nanton commented: “This office hasn’t received government funds since 2011, so they must get funds from development partners/NGOs to implement activities.” Respondents to the district

survey also supported the view that ADEOPs were used to request outside funding. When respondents were asked to list the three primary ways in which ADEOPs were used at the district office, the most common answer was to request or source support from NGOs and other

agencies.

9 Seven respondents to the district survey also noted that NGOs used the ADEOPs.



3.1.2.2 Leadership for Change and Leadership for Learning

Responses to the district survey revealed that 22 of 40 respondents had participated in the LfL training. Frequently mentioned leadership training topics included delegation, recordkeeping,

and always keeping the focus on teaching and learning. One DTST member from Savelugu-Nanton recalled all five principles discussed during the LfL training. Table 5 presents the principles and the number of district survey respondents that identified them specifically among

the “two to three most important concepts you learned” as a part of this training.

Table 5. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned in the Leadership for

Learning Training?

LfL Principle No. Times Referenced

Focus on learners. 5

Establish learning dialogue. 5

Share accountability. 5

Share responsibility. 1

Preserve the learning environment. 6

According to the respondent in Savelugu-Nanton, officials learned that adhering to these five principles would maximise leadership and learning at school. In terms of the effectiveness of the

trainers who delivered LfL/LfC, all 22 respondents to the district survey who had attended the training on leadership for change indicated that the training was delivered by an education

professional who was knowledgeable about the topic. Respondents emphasised that the leadership for learning training had had an impact on how they behaved and interacted with other district officers and teachers. A Builsa North DTST member referred to changes in school

management because of this training:

The LfC training, the heads have now been able to delegate power, give out

detailed information about the school in the office. If you enter the office and the head is not there now you will see whatever information you need pasted in the office. The logbooks, some head teachers used to lock them when they went away

but now they keep them in the office, due to the LfL training.

3.1.2.3 Supportive Supervision

According to respondents from the Builsa North DTST, the supportive supervision training, which was delivered to circuit supervisors and head teachers, focused on supervision,

monitoring, and evaluation. With regard to supervision, the training emphasised being a “critical friend” and incorporated practical demonstrations of “severe” versus “helpful” supervision. A

district official from Savelugu-Nanton reported something similar, noting an emphasis on “how to be a friend to those you supervise,” and commenting that “training emphasised that as a supervisor you are there to collect, to guide, and not to punish people.” The training also covered

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analyses and needs assessment. Table 6 presents the training concepts that survey respondents recalled most frequently.



Table 6. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned in the Supportive Supervision Training?

Commonly Recalled Supportive Supervision Concept

No. Times Referenced

Clinical supervision 10

Comprehensive supervision/visits 4

School entry model 2

Supportive assessment/monitoring 2

Survey respondents also referenced this training as focused on officers behaving “more of

counsellors than finding faults,” on developing the teacher/supervisor relationship, and the steps involved when conducting monitoring visits with teachers. Responses to the district survey revealed that 21 of 40 respondents had participated in the Supportive Supervision training, and

all stated that this training was delivered by an education professional who was knowledgeable about the topic. Respondents indicated that participants applied the concepts learned during the

supportive supervision training; for example, one DTST member from Builsa North reported that following the training they were vetting all teachers’ lesson notes and taking note of the content, as well as any strengths and weaknesses.

3.1.2.4 Communication and Coordination in Need of Strengthening

Although efforts at coordination appear to be occurring at the national level amongst different partners, coordination is not yet visible or flowing down to other levels of the education system. This poses challenges to ensuring that CD support is effective and evenly distributed to schools

across Ghana. Regional-level respondents, in particular, noted feeling excluded from coordination and planning processes, and did not describe being involved extensively in planning

at either the national or the district levels. District officers and teachers, on the other hand, described an effective and tight-knit communication and coordination structure between the district and school level. In this section, we discuss the communication and coordination

processes that facilitate CD at the national, regional, district, and school levels.

National-Level Communication and Coordination

Respondents at the national offices (as well as regional offices) described the nationwide

education mapping exercise that was currently underway to try to address duplication in the system. The mapping aimed to identify which NGOs were conducting education interventions, as well as where they were working in Ghana. National-level respondents described the intention of

this exercise as not only reducing duplication of efforts but creating “sanity in the system.” One respondent at the national level described the need to spread out interventions so that they were

not concentrated in just one area. This respondent was hopeful that the mapping would be shared. Respondents at the national level, as well as UNICEF, discussed one notable example that highlighted successful coordination efforts around the development of an early childhood

education framework for in-service teacher training10. One stakeholder in Accra explained that this framework was created following collaboration amongst implementers and donors who had

10 The CD interventions related to KG were not included in the focus of this evaluation; however, this example was

provided by multiple national level respondents in key informant interviews as an example of education sector

coordination.



supported the harmonisation effort. This group included the FHI 360, Right to Play, UNICEF, MASHAV, SABER Trust, and World Vision. The stake holder concluded that when considering

CD needs in the education sector, balancing the Government of Ghana’s need to “capitalise and leverage” funding with ensuring that activities do not become siloed is an ongoing coordination

challenge.

Regional-Level Communication and Coordination

Respondents at the regional level stated that, although communication was supposed to flow from the national level through them to the districts, the system did “not always work”—a

sentiment echoed by individuals we spoke to at the district level, as well. One respondent in the Upper East Region commented: “This decentralization thing has come to destroy all that. Right

now, the district reports straight to Accra; they don’t give us copies, so we [are] almost in the dark.” Multiple respondents at the regional level stated that they were left out of planning and implementation of CD interventions. One respondent believed that, in general, the regional level

had been bypassed because of a lack of funding, while another respondent believed it was because districts had obtained computers and phones in the past few years, allowing them to communicate directly with officers at the national level.

Despite this, it appeared that the planning and statistics officers at the regional and district levels

were in close communication with one another. One respondent said: “We have the regional statistical officers’ platform on WhatsApp that we always share information all the time.” We also heard that district reports reached the regional office. However, the fact that the regional

offices were unable to conduct monitoring visits to the districts because of funding constraints reduced their involvement in supporting the education sector at the district and school levels.

District-Level Communication and Coordination

District officers described collaborative relationships amongst themselves. Respondents in both districts described weekly meetings, during which officers discussed common issues at schools and how to address them. Despite describing strong relationships at this level, one respondent

reported that there was room for improvement in terms of ensuring that district education officers were in tune with activities taking place in the district:

We shouldn’t work as an individual but should work as a team. If I have a programme to run and know my sister can help, I rope her in and work as a team. We work [now] but not always; not everybody is involved. At times you see you

have a programme you are working with some people and others are left out. But even if they are not part of the programme, you should inform them so at least

they will be aware of what is happening.

The communication channels were described as particularly strong between district officers and circuit supervisors, who were the main point of contact for communicating with schools. One

officer in Savelugu-Nanton expressed a sentiment that was shared by multiple individuals at the district level: “If there is a challenging issue, before you move into the circuit you have to fall on

the circuit supervisor. We turn [to] them as landlords, you can’t go to somebody’s house without informing him.”



School-Level Communication and Coordination

Teachers and head teachers at both case study schools reported clear communication processes amongst teachers, between teachers and their head teacher, and between teachers and their circuit

supervisor, who played a critical role for both teachers and head teachers. One head teacher described their circuit supervisor as the “link” with the district office, while another emphasised the important role the circuit supervisor plays in monitoring: “In a term we can see him here

more than five times. . . . He comes to check our lesson notebooks, teachers’ attendance, and sometimes observes how lessons are delivered.” Responses from the district survey corroborated

this comment, with one third of respondents noting that circuit supervisors conducted monitoring visits to schools. However, the remaining two thirds identified other district office staff as responsible for monitoring visits. Most respondents (27 of 33) stated that the same person is not

responsible for conducting school visits each time. In addition to referencing meetings with teachers, administrators, and students, 20 of 29 district officers said that they also met with

SMCs or PTAs during these visits. The relationship between teachers and their head teacher was also described positively. Primary

school teachers at Pong Tamale Experimental School said: “We usually get informat ion [regarding a training] through the head teacher and then they write it and post it on the

noticeboard. And we had a WhatsApp chat with the teachers in this school so they just share it through that too.” Teachers from Rashidiya Primary School emphasised that their head teacher provided feedback to them and encouraged teachers returning from trainings to share the

knowledge they had acquired with the rest of the teachers.

3.2 Capacity Development for Teaching and Learning In this section, we discuss the relevance, effectiveness, perceived impact, and sustainability of

the UNICEF-supported trainings targeting classroom-level behaviour, with the exception of CD trainings focused on gender, which are presented in the section on girls’ education. The primary

training discussed in this section is the Child-Friendly Schools (CFS) training. However, respondents also provided input on the Child-Centred Gender-Based Activities training and the training on Equity and Inclusion Issues in Schools.

We begin this section by presenting descriptions by teachers, head teachers, and district officers

of the trainings they received that focused on teaching and learning processes, as well as their feedback on the more general support, resources or otherwise, provided by UNICEF to improve teaching and learning. We then discuss the perceived relevance, followed by perceived

sustainability, of these trainings. At the end of this section, we present findings from the school observations conducted at each of the case study schools.

3.2.1 CD Support Provided

The majority of teachers, head teachers, and district officers who received the CFS training described it

positively and could provide examples of child-friendly practices. Many respondents at the regional and district level had participated in the CFS training supported by UNICEF and recalled key concepts from the training, including the incorporation of play, the importance of safety (including the

prohibition of corporal punishment in schools), the need to create a child-friendly school environment, and the importance of involving families and communities in children’s education. In describing the

CFS training, a number of respondents also referenced the importance of being gender-sensitive



(including having separate toilets for girls and boys) and inclusive of students with physical and mental disabilities. One DTST member from Builsa North recalled that the CFS training encouraged

teachers to have their students establish their own code of conduct: “The aspect that was very interesting to me was allowing when you enter into a class the children are meant to make their own

bylaws, rules, and regulations in a class which will govern them and they comply with them.” A planning and statistics officer from Builsa North referred to the CFS training as “very informative” and maintained that “lesser-known child friendly issues . . . were all brought to the core.” Table 7 presents

the most frequent concepts recalled about this training by the 17 respondents to the district survey who participated in the CFS training.

Table 7: Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned in the CFS training.

CFS Concepts No. Times Referenced

School should be healthy (availability of toilet facilities) and/or safe for

pupils

9

“Inclusive school”/no discrimination/disability friendly 6

Friendly school environment/“play” referenced for pupils 5

No corporal punishment/promoting use of positive discipline 4

References to classrooms, facilities, and school environment as

gender sensitive

4

3.2.2 Organisation and Implementation of CD Activities

A majority of teachers and district officers indicated that the CFS training was organised and implemented in an appropriate manner, and that teaching and learning trainings were delivered

by skilled trainers. Of all the trainings listed in the teacher survey, responses suggested the child-friendly schools-focused trainings were the most widespread, as 64% of teachers reported having participated in the CFS training. Respondents largely agreed that the CFS training had clear

objectives and was highly relevant to their work (see Table 8).

Table 8: Teacher Feedback on CFS Training

Yes (%) Yes (N) No (%) No (N)

Objectives clearly stated? 100.0 64 0.0 0

Objectives achieved? 98.4 63 1.6 1

Any post-training follow-up? 70.3 45 29.7 19

Able to apply this training in your work? 98.4 63 1.6 1

Training contents appropriate? 96.9 62 3.1 2

Require further training? 59.4 38 40.6 26

N=64

In addition, all 17 respondents to the district officer survey indicated that the CFS training was delivered by an education professional who was knowledgeable about the topic. A majority of

teachers responding to the survey also stated that district trainers were qualified in general to deliver trainings focused on teaching and learning practices. Table 9 presents teacher feedback on whether district trainers are skilled to deliver trainings.



Table 9: Do you think District trainers are skilled to handle training sessions?

District Yes (%) No (%)

Komenda-Edina-Eguafo 100.0 0.0

Upper Denkyira West 90.0 10.0

Kwahu North (Afram Plains) 70.0 30.0

Upper Manya Krobo 90.0 10.0

Karaga 100.0 0.0

Savelugu-Nanton 100.0 0.0

Builsa 80.0 20.0

Garu-Tempane 90.0 10.0

Lambussie Karni 100.0 0.0

Wa East 100.0 0.0

Total (N=100) 92 8

3.2.3 Relevance

Teachers, head teachers, and district officers consistently agreed that the CFS training, in addition to other trainings focused on teaching and learning, were relevant to their work. Despite

this, respondents highlighted several challenges related to their overall relevance, including the lack of sufficient or appropriate materials to deliver the step-down trainings and the need for additional trainings on core subjects such as reading and math. In this section, we present

findings from interviews, and district and teacher surveys, on the perceived relevance of teaching and learning-focused trainings, the methods and resources they involved, ongoing challenges in

delivering trainings to the school level, and the need to boost CD support to SMCs and Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) to facilitate effective teaching and learning in schools.

3.2.3.1 Teaching and Learning Trainings Are Relevant and Participatory

Respondents agreed that UNICEF-supported trainings on child-friendly schools, child-centred

gender-based activities, and equity and fairness issues in schools were relevant, practical, and activity-based. A DTST member from Builsa North commented:

We even had some role plays on them, which was very helpful to us. When we started with role plays, we saw we can do them. We were given a comfortable

place to sit down and learn at our own pace; there wasn’t much pressure on us.

A respondent from the Northern Regional Office reported something similar: “I remember it was

very interactive and everyone was allowed to talk. We were put in groups, with lectures, practical assignments, and presentations from the trainees.” Respondents to the district survey also unanimously indicated that the CFS training, in particular, was interactive (see Table 10).



Table 10. Elements Involved in the Child-Friendly Schools Training







n=17

A majority of teachers also rated several teaching and learning- focused trainings as “very relevant” in the teacher survey. Table 11 presents these findings on the extent to which teachers

found UNICEF-supported trainings relevant.

Table 11: How relevant is this training?

Training n Very relevant (%)

Relevant (%)

Neutral (%)

Not relevant (%)

Child-Friendly Schools 64 64.1 31.3 3.1 1.6

Child-centred gender-based activities 60 61.7 35.0 3.3 0.0

Equity and fairness issues in schools 18 72.2 22.2 5.6 0.0

3.2.3.2 Need for Further Training on Core Subjects

While district and school-level respondents appreciated the UNICEF-supported trainings they

had received, they also indicated that perhaps more pressing was a need for training in core subjects, as teachers continued to encounter challenges in teaching information and

communications technology (ICT), reading, and math.11 Numerous teachers and education officials cited a need for additional ICT training, as well as training on how to teach reading. Many respondents commented that reading was a critical foundation skill that many Ghanaian

students lacked, and their inability to read (or read well) prevented them from succeeding in other subjects. On the importance of reading, one DTST member from Savelugu-Nanton

commented: “We need more training especially on language and literacy; everything the child does is about this.” Other frequently mentioned topics included natural science (and specifically a topic within science called electronics), English language, creative arts, and fractions, as well

as more general classroom management. Teachers also expressed a desire for additional training in pedagogical techniques. A teacher at Pong Tamale Experimental School commented: “They

should put up more training sessions to train us as teachers so that we can be abreast with the modern styles of teaching.”

11 UNICEF supported trainings with a focus on early grade reading and numeracy were initiated in 2016 and were

not included in the current evaluation as they did not meet the specified criteria.



3.2.3.3 Reference Materials Critical for Step-Down Trainings and Application of Concepts

in the Classroom

A lack of reference and resource materials12 was frequently cited by district officials as significant obstacles to delivering trainings focused on teaching and learning, as well as by

teachers as preventing effective teaching in the classroom. Respondents indicated that they did not always receive materials during or after UNICEF-supported trainings, but that they very much appreciated receiving materials (both hard and soft copies) so they could consult them

afterwards. When asked in the district survey whether they still had the materials distributed during trainings, 23 of 27 respondents stated that they did still have them. According to respondents, materials were particularly helpful if participants were expected to deliver the

trainings to others in a step-down format. Of the 28 district responses to the district-level survey, 20 officers stated that they required specific materials in order to apply lessons from the

trainings. Of these 20 respondents, 15 stated that they currently had the required materials, suggesting that trainings were appropriately designed with resources in mind.

Despite responses to the survey, one Builsa North DTST member added that it was difficult to

secure materials to use during the step-down trainings: “A challenge is getting the materials here. We might need some materials that we want to use to run the workshops. We will get as far as to

Bolgatanga, but can’t get them.”

At the school level, a majority of teachers stated that, although several teacher and learning- focused trainings required specific materials in order to apply the training content, they had these

materials. Tables 12 and 13 present the results of these questions.

Table 12: Are there specific materials you require to be able to apply the lessons learnt?

Training n Yes (%) No (%)

Child-Friendly Schools 64 63.9 36.1

Child-centred gender-based activities 60 68.8 31.2

Equity and fairness issues in schools 18 42.8 57.3

Table 13: Do you have the material?

Training Total N Yes (%) No (%)

Child-Friendly Schools 42 57.3 42.7

Child-centred gender-based activities 42 63.7 36.3

Equity and fairness issues in schools 9 73.1 26.9

Although a majority of teachers indicated that they had materials to implement training content, this percentage was slightly lower for teachers responding about materials needed to create child-friendly schools. In interviews, some teachers also cited materials as a challenge in training

application. According to one teacher from Pong Tamale Experimental School: “Some of the workshops, you go there but at the end of the day you don’t have any material to refer [to] in

case you forgot. You don’t have any manual that you can quickly refer to.” A district official

12 Due to the fact that the survey consisted of close-ended questions (primarily multiple choice), respondents were

unable to specify the types of materials they needed to deliver trainings and apply training content.



from Savelugu-Nanton also corroborated this view, stating that teachers were trying to incorporate play but lacked learning materials for students: “[They] say we should integrate play

in whatever we are teaching, [children] are playful in nature, so when they get these recreational materials for them to play with, [but] most of the schools are not having them.” It was unclear

from respondents which materials participants had received that they could consult following the training – for example, manuals with key concepts and practical ways in which to apply new pedagogy in the classroom setting. In order to ensure that trainings are delivered in a

standardized, consistent manner, it may be valuable to encourage trainers to adhere to a set of training delivery standards. One such standard could include developing and sharing soft or hard

copies of practical guides focused on the training content for participants to reference when implementing new practices.

3.2.3.4 Need for Fewer Training Participants and Timing Appropriate to School Calendar

Most teachers explained that, the while the content of the UNICEF-supported trainings was

valuable, the trainings included too many participants, which negatively impacted the effectiveness of the training, and the trainings themselves were timed without taking into consideration important times of year based on the school calendar. Teachers from Pong Tamale

Experimental School expressed a clear preference for smaller trainings:

I have one issue with the delivery, large numbers of teachers going for a

workshop you will not have a seat . . . you will just be standing. And when the numbers are large there is no way that you can take part. So we teachers have to believe that the INSET we are organizing in schools is better than the workshops

we attend. Because the numbers are small, you can interact freely with those that attend.

Teachers also expressed concerns about the fact that some trainings were scheduled around vacation times, on weekends, or on holidays. One teacher from Pong Tamale Experimental School reported that trainings scheduled late in the school year were also a challenge:

They may decide to do the workshop just at the later part of the academic year. By then the teachers are busy organizing the end-of-term exams for their pupils.

So sometimes we find it very difficult moving to leave your pupils only to go for such workshops. If they can do it at an appropriate time, it would help a lot.

Another teacher from Pong Tamale Experimental School explained that trainings organised on or

around vacation times caused problems because teachers then forgot the content of the trainings and did not have the opportunity to immediately apply the concepts in the classroom.

3.2.4 Effectiveness, Perceived Impacts, and Sustainability

Respondents in both district offices and schools provided input on the teaching and learning-

focused trainings through interviews, focus groups, and surveys, indicating that the CFS training in particular was well organised and implemented. Respondents at multiple levels (including students at both case study schools) described behaviour change resulting from might not have

informed the design of this training, this topic nevertheless resonated with teachers. Additionally, qualitative findings indicate that circuit supervisors play a role in facilitat ing behavior change



and the CD process. One head teacher described their circuit supervisor in Savelugu-Nanton as a mentor who helps discuss solutions to challenges, provides guidance on lesson plans, and

counsels on management of teachers and the school community. Despite the positive changes, respondents suggested that further refresher trainings be provided specifically on the use of the

CFS checklist, so that all teachers would know what was included on the tool and head teachers would understand how to properly complete it. In addition, respondents indicated that the number of training opportunities provided to teachers at some schools might prevent them from

having the time to implement new practices in the classroom.

3.2.4.1 Behaviour Change

Respondents consistently referenced applying what they had learned from the CFS training,

notably more so than other trainings inquired about by the evaluation team. The CFS checklist was mentioned quite frequently, with many respondents indicating that head teachers completed the checklist twice per year. The evaluation team was told a number of success stories related to

the CFS checklist, including by a member of the DTST in Savelugu-Nanton, who said:

There is a checklist about facilities being gender-sensitive, urinals and toilets and

what have you, and actually before the concept there was just one pit somewhere that the girls and boys would have to go to. After receiving this information, the

head teacher created separate latrines13 and, in fact, it brought some life into the school—the children who used to have to go all the way to the house because they couldn’t imagine themselves without privacy and would say, “No, I’m not coming

back again.” Now this is better.

At Rashidiya Primary School, one teacher reported that teachers had ceased using corporal punishment since receiving the CFS training. In addition, a DTST member from Builsa North said: “When you get to the KG you will really see the walls are talking.” This is a concept

covered in CFS training. Findings from the school-level survey corroborate our qualitative finding that CFS concepts (and, in particular, the CFS checklist) are being applied in classrooms.

Survey responses related to checklist utilization are presented in Table 14.

13 This may be an unusual case, as teachers and head teachers typically have limited authority over school

infrastructure.



Table 14: Use of CFS Checklist

District

Aware of

Checklist (%)

Use

Checklist in

Class (%)

Use

Checklist in

School (%)

Seen

Changes as a Result of

Checklist (%)

School

Office Uses

Checklist (%)

Builsa North 50.0 70.0 50.0 70.0 60.0

Garu-Tempane 40.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 10.0

Karaga 10.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 60.0

Komenda-Edina-Eguafo-Abirem 80.0 90.0 60.0 70.0 40.0

Kwahu Afram Plains North 100.0 70.0 70.0 60.0 40.0

Lambussie Karni 76.9 92.3 69.2 69.2 38.5

Savelugu-Nanton 60.0 80.0 70.0 70.0 60.0

Upper Denkyira West 60.0 50.0 10.0 20.0 30.0

Upper Manya Krobo 80.0 40.0 10.0 10.0 0.0

Wa East 85.7 100.0 85.7 85.7 57.1

TOTAL 69.8 77.2 74.6 77.5 42.4

Total (N) 92 92 71 71 92

3.2.4.2 Need for Additional Training on the CFS Checklist

Respondents highlighted a challenge teachers had in scoring the CFS checklist. Several respondents reported that some head teachers have difficulty completing the checklist:

I turn to find out the scoring confuses most of the teachers, and so if they were given a retraining—the last time we came around with results they looked

suspicious and there you can tell that sometimes the heads they don’t fill the instrument, it’s all the understanding they are supposed to especially when it

comes to issues that look like exposes they themselves. So if we get the training better or intensify it or repeat it, it will help them better understand the instruments and they will do it as expected of them.

Although the response to the CFS training was overwhelmingly positive, most respondents to the teacher survey (59.4%) indicated that further training was needed in CFS. Officials from

Savelugu-Nanton echoed this sentiment, with one respondent indicating that turnover of head teachers was the primary reason additional training was needed on how to use the CFS checklist. In addition, the use of the CFS checklist, in terms of how it informs changes at schools is

unclear. One district officer in Savelugu-Nanton explained, “we are concentrating much on the quality of data gathering on the platform for now,” and noted that a formal, consistent feedback

mechanism was not yet in place, stating that while “we are not analysing and giving them report . . . directly you can communicate with the school on anything you have seen.”



Student Perceptions of Child Friendliness

Pong Tamale Experimental School Rashidiya Primary School

Students at Pong Tamale Experimental School

acknowledged the lack of resources in the

classroom, in particular noting that there were not

enough books: “Two or three children to a book.

The books are kept in the head teacher’s office.”

Students also mentioned that they had separate

toilets for boys and girls, although one student

reported that only the girls were chosen to clean it.

Despite this, student responses indicated that

concepts related to CFS and gender-sensitive

pedagogy had reached the student level. Multiple

students mentioned the opportunities to play

games in class, and one student described the

teachers in the following way: “At first they used

to beat us. But now they tell us that we are all the

same and then try to help us learn.” Several

students said that the head teacher was their friend

and a person they could reach out to if there were

problems.

Students reported that certain aspects of Rashidiya

Primary School were child-friendly, such as access to

drinking water and the availability of soap. However,

the school appears to have lacked learning materials and

clean toilets. About half of the focus group students

reported that they had textbooks for each of their

subjects, but the other half said that they did not. Some

students shared textbooks, while others had their own.

Students disagreed over whether the school was clean,

but most maintained that it was not. Students reported

that there were separate toilets for girls and boys, that

they had access to soap to wash their hands, and that

there was pipe water available for drinking at school.

All students agreed that there were no pictures or posters

on the walls of their classrooms. Students said they had

room to write, although this contradicted what our

evaluation team saw during the classroom observations

at this school. Students in the focus group reported

several games they played at school, including football,

Scrabble, and “ludu.” All students said that they felt safe

at school, as well as commuting to and from school.

3.2.4.3 Sustainability

Training saturation, as well as the overlap in training opportunities on the same topics, raised questions regarding whether CD activities supporting teaching and learning were occurring in a

manner that would result in sustained behaviour changes, particularly for teachers who indicated that the frequency of training opportunities prevented them from dedicating time to applying

practices in the classroom. At both case study schools, it was clear that teachers were very familiar with several concepts highlighted in UNICEF-supported trainings. However, respondents were quick to highlight other NGOs working in their community that had conducted

similar trainings for them. Some respondents (such as this teacher from Pong Tamale Experimental School) said that trainings were sometimes offered to teachers in such quick

succession that participants did not have time to apply what they had learned before being called to another training:

I think most of the times there will be a particular period every day that teachers

are going to a workshop . . . they don’t have enough time to put whatever they have learned [into practice]. For example, today we are going to a Right to Play

workshop. Tomorrow we have not gotten the time to put whatever that they taught us into practice. The next day we are going to another workshop from another organization. So sometimes we feel like, no, we are just going to learn we are not

putting it into practice.



However, it is possible that schools located in more central and accessible areas of districts (such as Pong Tamale Experimental School) receive more training opportunities than schools located in

rural and remote locations of the country. In the teacher survey, we asked whether head teachers felt there were too many teacher trainings, and most respondents said No (see Table 15).

Consequently, it may be worthwhile to ensure that teachers from rural and remote schools are adequately represented at trainings so that schools receive an even distribution of support from UNICEF.

Table 15: Too Many Teacher Training Programmes?

District Yes No

Builsa North 0.0 100.0

Garu-Tempane 10.0 90.0

Karaga 25.0 75.0

Komenda-Edina-Eguafo-Abirem 40.0 60.0

Kwahu Afram Plains North 20.0 80.0

Lambussie Karni 0.0 100.0

Savelugu-Nanton 11.1 88.9

Upper Denkyira West 22.2 77.8

Upper Manya Krobo 37.5 62.5

Wa East 0.0 100.0

Total (N=92)



Case Study School Observations

We conducted three classroom observations at Pong Tamale

Experimental School and three at Rashidiya Primary School in Grades 4, 5, and 6 in both mathematics and literacy and language arts classes. This section specifically presents the

observations related to child-friendliness.

Although we did not visit a large enough number of schools and classrooms to have generalizable results, we found that

workspace and materials were generally deemed to be insufficient for effective learning to take place. Indeed, there was a general lack of adequate student workspace (desks and

chairs) across all classes observed. Three classes reported that no boys or girls had adequate workspace, and in one class many more boys than girls had adequate workspace. In one

classroom at Pong Tamale Experimental School, the evaluation team noted that the classroom did not have enough chairs for all students. Some girls were sitting on the floor or on wooden

planks, and other students were using broken desks. In Rashidiya Primary School’s Grade 4 mathematics period, all boys but only one third of girls had adequate workspace. The

other classes were proportional between genders, or no children had adequate workspace. In one class at Pong Tamale Experimental School, less than half of the girls used appropriately sized furniture, compared with most boys. The reverse was true

in another classroom at this school.

Of the six classrooms observed, only two had visible teaching materials. Teaching materials included posters, a rabbit skeleton, and alphabet letters above the blackboard. The only teaching

materials the evaluation team observed the teachers using during the observation period were textbooks and a white board. Students in five of the six classes were observed using materials, including textbooks, pens and pencils, and exercise books.

3.3 Capacity Development for Girls’ Education This section explores the relevance, effectiveness, perceived impacts, and sustainability of CD interventions supporting girls’ education. Considerable emphasis is placed on one training in particular—Gender-Responsive Pedagogy—for two reasons: (1) this activity was highlighted in

detail by many respondents during interviews and focus groups (for many it was the only CD activity they could recall related to girls’ education), and (2) the quantitative survey included

targeted questions about the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training and its implementation, relevance, and application in the classroom.

Student FGD in a classroom at Pong

Tamale Experimental School. Photo by Hannah Ring, 2017.



3.3.1 CD Support Provided

Many education officials at both the regional and district levels reported participating in UNICEF’s training on gender-responsive

pedagogy, as did teachers from the two schools we visited for case studies and the majority

(60%) of teachers from the 10 districts we visited for the quantitative research. Respondents recalled key concepts from the

Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training, such as gender-equitable classroom management, gender-sensitive textbooks and lesson content,

and offering additional encouragement to female students. Respondents offered practical

examples from the training, such as calling on male and female students equally, mixing genders during group work, and ensuring

appropriate seating arrangements. Regarding seating arrangements, a DTST member from

Builsa North said: “You don’t push the females to one side and males to another, you mix up so the learning is more effective and interactive.” A

DTST member from Savelugu-Nanton commented that, during the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training, participants learned to pay

special attention to female students: “The emphasis is on the girl-child, the male are always coming, it is just that you are introducing a certain positive discrimination to at least help the female child to come to parity, which is why we are concentrating on the girls.” Several GEOs

also reported receiving the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training. In Savelugu-Nanton, the GEO recalled:

When I started, I had no training on girl-child issues; my first training was in Kumasi. UNICEF organised training on girl-child officers who were new, we had training on that. How we should go about our work on gender issues, what gender issues are and how to

deal with them. We also had trainings on counselling. How to counsel the girl child, formation of clubs, and others.

In addition, respondents indicated that GEOs were active at the national, regional, and district levels. In addition, school-based facilitators worked with GEOs on sensitization efforts related to

girls’ education. Respondents expressed that girls’ education issues were primarily addressed through sensitization of girls and their parents on the importance of education, and sensitization

of teachers on issues pertaining to girls. In Builsa North, a circuit supervisor mentioned a recent UNICEF-supported sensitization effort: “UNICEF recently funded a program where we went and met parents, market women, chiefs, religious leaders, assemblymen, key stakeholders, very

recent during the holiday time. And we had the opportunity of talking to them about the importance of education.” In addition, a DTST member from Builsa North said that sometimes

the DTST sent accomplished female role models to schools to speak to girls, and teachers from Pong Tamale Experimental School said they created girls’ clubs.

At Pong Tamale Experimental School. Photo by Hannah Ring, 2017.



3.3.1.1 Organisation and Implementation of CD Activities

The majority of teachers (see Table 16) reported that either a DEO or DTST member facilitated the gender-based activities training, gender-responsive pedagogy training, and any other

trainings they received related to girls’ education.

Table 16: Who conducted the training?

Training n Teachers / Head Teachers (%)

DTST (%)

DEO (%)

Other (%)

Gender-based activities training 58 3.4 11.4 67.2 18.0

Gender-responsive pedagogy 60 4.3 17.4 61.8 16.5

Other related trainings related to girls’ education

35 10.5 12.1 53.7 23.8

Qualitatively, teachers’ and district officials’ responses were mixed as to who delivered the gender-responsive pedagogy training—some said head teachers, some said DEOs in partnership

with NGOs, and others simply indicated that the training was delivered by experts at the circuit level. In terms of coverage, a district trainer from Savelugu-Nanton reported that all teachers who had been in the district for at least 2 years had received the gender-responsive pedagogy

training. Results from the quantitative survey revealed 60% of teachers reported participating in the gender-responsive pedagogy training.

3.3.2 Relevance

This section explores whether the CD interventions delivered in the field of girls’ education were

appropriate to achieve the desired results; whether the methods were appropriate given the sector needs and available resources, and whether the interventions targeted the appropriate individuals, organisations, or policies.

Teachers surveyed confirmed the relevance of trainings related to girls’ education, with the vast

majority indicating that overall the trainings were either “very relevant” or “relevant” (see Table 17). Impressively, not a single teacher reported that the training content for gender-based activities, gender-responsive pedagogy, or other girls’ education-related trainings was “not

relevant.”

Table 17: Training Content Relevance (Gender & Girls’ Education)

Training n Very relevant (%)

Relevant (%)

Neutral (%)

Not relevant (%)




35 65.7 28.6 5.7 0.0

The survey also included specific questions about the relevance of the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training (see Table 18). Responses were overwhelmingly positive about the relevance



of the training—97% of teachers said they would be able to apply the training to their work, and 98% said the training content was appropriate.

Table 18: Teacher Feedback on Gender-Responsive Pedagogy Training

Yes (%) Yes (N) No (%) No (N)

Objectives clearly stated? 98.3 59 1.7 1

Objectives achieved? 98.3 59 1.7 1

Any post-training follow-up? 50.0 30 50.0 30

Able to apply this training in your work? 96.7 58 3.3 1

Training contents appropriate? 98.3 59 1.7 1

Require further training? 65.0 39 35.0 21

n=60

It certainly appears that girls’ education-related trainings (such as gender-responsive pedagogy)

were targeting the appropriate individuals: teachers and district officials. That said, existing literature highlights the importance of involving parents and community members in girls’ education-related efforts (Sperling & Winthrop, 2016), which we found as an area of weakness

across the three thematic areas; lack of parental and community engagement in education was reported by many respondents in interviews and focus groups.

One constraint that emerged related to applying lessons learnt concerned gender-sensitive textbooks and the availability of resources. While the concept of gender-sensitive textbooks

appears to have come through saliently during the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training (many respondents remarked on this concept specifically), teachers indicated that there were not always

resources available to replace the textbooks found to be gender-insensitive. To this end, a teacher from Pong Tamale Experimental School commented, “For the negatives we have realised that the textbooks are not girl-friendly and they should balance the gendered roles so that the girl

child will not be left out.” However, despite the encouraging finding that teachers were able to recognise that textbooks were not gender sensitive (which indicates comprehension of key

concepts from the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training), the challenge of replacing these textbooks remained. This particular teacher indicated that Pong Tamale presently lacked resources to replace the books.

As part of the quantitative survey, teachers were asked whether specific materials were required

to apply the lessons they learned in training and, if they were, whether teachers had those materials. Table 19 shows somewhat mixed results as to whether specific materials are needed; between one half and two thirds of teachers reported that yes, specific materials are required.

Table 19: Are there specific materials you require to be able to apply the lessons learnt?


Gender-based activities training 58 66.5 33.5

Gender-responsive pedagogy 60 54.7 45.3

Other trainings related to girls’ education 35 53.7 46.3



As to whether the teachers had those materials necessary to implement the gender-based activities training, gender-responsive pedagogy training, and other trainings related to girls’

education, Table 20 shows that most teachers (71.3% to 90.8%) reported having these materials on hand—a finding that somewhat contradicts what we heard during interviews and focus

groups.

Table 20: Do you have the material?


Gender-based activities training 38 71.3 28.8

Gender-responsive pedagogy 30 85.6 14.4

Other related trainings related to girls’ education 19 90.8 9.2

3.3.3 Effectiveness, Perceived Impacts & Sustainability

In this section, we discuss the practical application of training content, focusing on school-level

behaviour change but triangulating teachers’ self-reporting with the perspective of district and regional education officers. Next, we explore the sustainability of CD interventions in the girls’ education sector, exploring key issues that risk compromising these interventions’ long-term

impact.

3.3.3.1 Application of Training Content and Behaviour Changes

Respondents also reported several practical ways in which gender-responsive pedagogy was being implemented in the classroom,14 such as using he and she equally when giving examples.

A DTST member from Builsa North commented:

Always maybe [as] you are forming a sentence, you say “he is” but try to use “she is” too. Asking questions should be gender friendly—maybe you always say “Kufi is playing ball” and “Ama is sweeping” but you can also say [the reverse].

A teacher from Pong Tamale Experimental School offered a similar example, saying teachers

there tried to use girls’ names more frequently than boys’ names when giving examples. Other examples mentioned by teachers from Rashidiya Primary School included asking both girls and boys to sweep and clean the toilets and mixing genders in seating arrangements. A DTST

member from Builsa North reported that, following the gender-responsive pedagogy training, teachers were more careful in selecting textbooks that were gender-sensitive:

Opening textbooks to check whether they were gender-sensitive or not was a challenge; when they brought and we went through we really saw that most of them are not gender-

sensitive. So now teachers, when they are picking a book, they will look before they buy it.

At Case Experimental School, one teacher reported calling on girls more frequently following the gender-responsive pedagogy training: “We went to a workshop and were told to desist from that [calling on more boys than girls]. If you call one if a boy, the next should be a girl. I try so

14 Some of these reported behaviour changes may have resulted from or been reinforced by other gender- or girls’-

education-related trainings, but by far the most frequently mentioned was the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training.



much, but since the girls are more in my class so if I have five questions more girls will answer: three girls, two boys.”

School observations yielded mixed results as to the adoption of gender-sensitive and child-friendly

pedagogical techniques in the classroom (see Table 21), with very few differences observed in the treatment of girls and boys by their teachers. Observers noticed only three differences, all in classrooms at the higher-performing Pong Tamale Experimental School: the teacher in the Pong

Tamale Grade 6 classroom appeared slightly more likely to give positive feedback to girls; the teacher in the Pong Tamale Grade 4 classroom redirected girls who were not paying attention more

than boys not paying attention; and the teacher in the Pong Tamale Grade 4 classroom appeared more likely to give girls adequate time to answer questions as compared with boys.

Table 21. Classroom Observation of Gender-Sensitive and Child-Friendly Teaching Practices

Sc

ho

ol

an

d g

rad

e

Gir

ls a

re a

sk

ed

qu

es

tio

ns

req

uir

ing

hig

he

r le

ve

l th

ink

ing

.

Bo

ys

are

as

ke

d q

ue

sti

on

s

req

uir

ing

hig

he

r le

ve

l th

ink

ing

.

Te

ac

he

r p

rov

ide

s p

os

itiv

e

fee

db

ac

k to

gir

ls.

Te

ac

he

r p

rov

ide

s p

os

itiv

e

fee

db

ac

k to

bo

ys

.

Te

ac

he

r re

dir

ec

ts g

irls

n

ot

pa

yin

g a

tte

nti

on

.

Te

ac

he

r re

dir

ec

ts b

oy

s

no

t p

ay

ing

att

en

tio

n.

Te

ac

he

r u

se

s p

os

itiv

e

me

tho

ds

fo

r m

an

ag

ing

g

irls

' b

eh

av

iou

r.

Te

ac

he

r u

se

s p

os

itiv

e

me

tho

ds

fo

r m

an

ag

ing

b

oy

s' b

eh

av

iou

r.

Te

ac

he

r g

ive

s g

irls

ad

eq

ua

te t

ime

to

an

sw

er

qu

es

tio

ns

.

Te

ac

he

r g

ive

s b

oy

s

ad

eq

ua

te t

ime

to

an

sw

er

qu

es

tio

ns

.

Pong

Tamale Grade 5

A little

bit true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Pong

Tamale Grade 6

Not at all true

Not at all true

A little bit true

Not at all true

A little bit true

A little bit true

A little bit true

Not at all true

Mostly true

Mostly true

Rashidiya

Grade 5

Not at

all true

Not at

all true

A little

bit true

A little

bit true

Not at

all true

Not at

all true

Not at all

true

Not at all

true

Not at all

true

Not at

all true

Rashidiya Grade 4

Not at all true

Not at all true

Mostly true

Mostly true

A little bit true

A little bit true

Mostly true

Mostly true

Mostly true

Mostly true

Pong

Tamale Grade 6

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

A little

bit true

A little

bit true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Pong

Tamale Grade 4

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

A little

bit true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

Mostly

true

A little

bit true



Student Perceptions of Gender Sensitivity

Pong Tamale Experimental School Rashidiya Primary School

Students told the evaluation team that teachers

called on girls the same amount as boys during

class, with one emphasizing: “He normally

chooses the one who raise the hands. If he points

[to] the boy and the boy answers the question, the

next question he will choose a girl to answer it.”

Although a few students mentioned that girls sat

on the floor in their class, this appeared to be

because of a lack of desks and chairs, rather than a

gender-specific practice, as another student

explained: “The boys sit in the front but if you

come early you can sit in the front.” In both FGDs

with students, the majority of students stated that

their class had more girls than boys. Students in

one focus group indicated that the seven female

teachers at their school were insufficient for the number of students at the school.

Rashidiya students reported that their teachers

treated them equally (“The teacher likes all of us”)

and called on whoever raised their hand, regardless

of gender. In terms of seating, most students

agreed that the girls sit on one side of the

classroom and the boys sit on the other (this may

have something to do with the fact that this is an

Islamic school) but that neither gender was

consistently seated closer to the blackboard than

the other. Although the numbers of boys and girls

in each class were not equal, about half of the

focus group participant students said that there

were more boys in the class and half said that there

were more girls. Students largely agreed that their

school did not have enough female teachers.

3.3.3.2 Sustainability

Our evaluation identified four key factors that could potentially compromise the sustainability of CD interventions in the girls’ education sector: the need for additional follow-up trainings on

gender-responsive pedagogy, the lack of monitoring and accountability following CD interventions, the lack of parental and community engagement in education, and the limited

number of female teachers in certain areas. While respondents referenced a number of examples of behaviour change resulting from the gender-sensitive pedagogy training, nearly two thirds of respondents (65%) indicated that additional training on gender-responsive pedagogy concepts

was needed. Only half (50%) of teachers who participated in the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy training reported that there was any post-training follow-up, and generally speaking, respondents

at all levels (from the national to the school level) cited the lack of monitoring and accountability following trainings.

While there is clear evidence that parental and community support are critical to the success of interventions supporting girls’ education (Sperling & Winthrop, 2016), respondents complained

widely about the lack of parental and community engagement in girls’ education efforts. One

DTST member in Builsa North attributed the lack of engagement to illiteracy: “[The] problem has to do with the majority of SMC and PTA members being illiterate. It makes their work difficult.” Other respondents referenced the pervasive lack of prioritization for girls’ education as

a key factor inhibiting parental and community engagement.

Another issue related to the potential success and sustainability of CD interventions in the field of girls’ education is the number of female teachers. There is clear evidence that the presence of female teachers positively impacts female student retention and performance (Herz & Sperling,

2004; Khandker, 1996; Lloyd, Mete, & Grant, 2007; Rihani, 2006; Rugh, 2000; Warwick & Jatoi, 1994). Therefore, since the goal of CD interventions in the girls’ education sector is to



improve girls’ learning outcomes, a shortage of female teachers can be viewed as a critical threat to the success and sustainability of CD interventions. Responses during interviews and focus

groups were mixed as to whether there were enough female teachers in the schools and districts we visited. However, most district survey respondents (29 of 35) maintained that there were not

enough female teachers in their district. District officials in Savelugu-Nanton expressed particular concern that there were not enough female teachers in rural areas of Savelugu-Nanton, a sentiment that was less pronounced in Builsa North. According to one Savelugu-Nanton circuit

supervisor: “Most of the female teachers are around Savelugu, Pong Tamale, especially Pong Tamale town. But the villages, you will find that female teachers don’t even want to go those

villages. . . . You can count so many schools in the villages without a single female teacher.” Lastly, and perhaps quite obviously, the potential

success and sustainability of CD efforts within the girls’ education sector is inherently related to the

environmental challenges currently compromising girls’ access to and enrolment in school. Table 23 presents results from the district-level survey

regarding key challenges affecting girls’ access to and enrolment in school. The three most frequently

cited challenges are “pregnancy,” “community doesn’t value importance of girls’ education,” and “illiteracy,” followed closely by “distance to

school” and “seasonal farm work.” Interview and focus group participants largely cited the same

challenges, although perhaps with slightly less emphasis on pregnancy.

3.4 Cross-Cutting Findings Findings at all levels suggest several challenges to effective CD cut across the categories of relevance, effectiveness, and impact and sustainability. The

findings below are challenges that flow through each and are critical challenges in need of

addressing in order to improve CD processes. These include the limitations highlighted of the cascade model to CD delivery, insufficient monitoring and feedback processes and an overall lack of an M&E framework to examine how capacity is being changed over time, and limited

ownership and accountability within the education system.

3.4.1 While Trainings Resonated with Participants, They Lacked Immediate

Relevance for Application and Use

The trainings explored in this evaluation were supply-driven, rather than demand-driven and

originating as a result of a formal needs assessment. Despite this, respondents to both the surveys described them as highly relevant, and based on the qualitative data the training content seemed to resonate with those who participated in the CD trainings examined. For multiple reasons (most

often tied to resource constraints in general or a lack of teaching and learning materials), however, several trainings lacked the pathway through which participants could apply what they

Table 23: Challenges Affecting Girls’ Access to and Enrolment in School: District Survey Responses

Challenges

Number of Responses

Pregnancy 24

Community doesn’t value importance of girls’ education

12

Illiteracy 11

Distance to school 9

Seasonal farm work 9

Learning difficulties 7

Girls needed by families for market days

4

Household chores 4

Forced marriage 4

Lack of separate/acceptable bathroom facilities

3

Lack of uniforms 1

n=40



learned. One notable example of this is the ADEOP training and planning process, which was a largely theoretical exercise for district officers who do not make use of the document in the way

it was envisioned to be used because the overarching lack of resources made it difficult to effectively develop and stick to a set plan.

3.4.2 Trainings Focus on Capacity Development at the Individual level

The trainings examined in this evaluation for the most part focused on developing individual

capacity that training participants could then share with other district officers or teachers. In terms of the capacity assessment “points of entry”, it is clear that CD support targeted the individual level, but less visible if or how any efforts targeted the organisational or institutional

levels. In order for capacity to be developed and maintained over time across the education system, strengthening capacity at the organisational and institutional levels need to be prioritised

so turnover rates of schedule officers, for example, do not impact the performance of any one district office. Additionally, when asked during interviews or focus group discussions to define what “capacity development” meant, many respondents described it as attending training

sessions, courses, or workshops. Shifting the understanding of what the process of capacity development entails and should look like from that of attending trainings to that of a long-term

process of change is also needed.

3.4.3 Further Coordination is Needed, Particularly at the District Level

While communication among district officers and between the district and school level appears strong, gaps exist in terms of how CD support is coordinated at the school level. In order to address this, coordination of training or other kinds of CD opportunities needs to be strengthened

amongst district officers and between district officers and other NGOs operating in a district as well as district officers and head teachers. Strengthening and standardizing communication and

coordination processes at district offices can address the training fatigue many respondents referenced. Doing so could ensure trainings are evenly spaced and delivered to schools and also build synergies with what other actors in the district are doing, thereby reducing duplication of

efforts.

3.4.4 Concerns Expressed Regarding the Cascade Model of Training

Delivery

While teachers mentioned the advantages of the cascade model in the teacher survey, noting that

these included reduced costs and that a decentralised method was easy to organise, district trainers explained that they encountered several obstacles when delivering trainings to the school level. One challenging area was the lack of an appropriate time to deliver trainings to schools.

One Builsa North DTST member said that teachers did not want to attend trainings on weekends; so trainings were conducted after school or only certain participants were selected to attend full-

day trainings.

If they are using after-school hours, it’s only two hours they can use, and those two hours they can’t get effective impact of the training. So they might use several days, and in doing that it won’t be effective. So we think if head teachers are

given this training, they are only going to support their teachers individually, not bringing them as one.



In addition to the issue of the timing of the training, respondents indicated that they were expected to significantly condense the content of the training they received when delivering the

step-down training. This suggests the need for the training of trainers to take into consideration how much content district trainers can realistically condense and deliver to teachers in order for

the training to be effective and have an impact.

When teachers were asked in the survey which method of training they preferred, 47% of respondents indicated that they preferred the direct approach to training, with 11% indicating that they preferred the cascade approach and 13% indicating that they preferred a combination of

direct and cascade methods of training. It is interesting that, when teachers were asked in the survey about the disadvantages of the cascade method of training, the majority of responses

centred around a lack of capacity of the teacher who went for the training to impart the knowledge to the rest of the teachers, and that “vital information may be lost in the chain or distorted.” In addition a few responses indicated that school-based INSETs were not always

organised at the school when the teacher returned from trainings. Developing standards regarding how trainings should be delivered, or some form of consistent training modules that

could be used by trainers could address this challenge and ensure that the trainer follows and is held accountable to imparting knowledge in a clear and consistent manner.

Finally, a DTST member from Builsa North reported motivational issues related to the cascade

model of training, explaining that he believed that teachers and head teachers were more interested in the allowances associated with the trainings than the training content itself. He gave the following example:

In 2015, they had a workshop on inclusive education. They went to the school and asked the assistant what inclusive education was because the head teacher wasn’t there, and she couldn’t describe what it was. It was a disgrace . . . they are

interested in the money when they go to the trainings, and at the end of the day you ask for a report, you go to the individuals and they will report on the food,

money, but not on the content of what they have learned.

While motivational issues are difficult to address, the concerns about condensing training content and information getting distorted during step-down trainings suggest that

education stakeholders may want to explore alternate approaches to CD. Additionally, as we discuss in the following section, focused monitoring and training follow-up could

hold training participants accountable for sharing and applying training concepts in the classroom.

3.4.5 Monitoring

The follow-up and monitoring support provided to district officers and teachers after they participate in a training is critical to ensuring that training concepts are well understood and

consistently applied. Through training follow-up it is possible to see whether CD trainings are resulting in any change at the individual, school, or district/regional education office levels.

However, with the exception of the CFS checklist, respondents did not reference integrating CD training follow-up into their routine monitoring visits, and the majority of respondents highlighted monitoring as a key area in need of strengthening.



In this subsection, we present findings on the training follow-up provided by UNICEF to education offices, followed by the monitoring (and training follow-up where specifically

described) provided by districts to schools.

3.4.5.1 Post-Training Follow-Up: From the National Level and UNICEF, to Regions and

Districts

Officers at the district and regional levels differed in their feedback on the level of follow-up they receive from the national level after participating in UNICEF-supported trainings.

Respondents at the regional level complained about a lack of follow-up to training activities. One respondent from the Northern Regional Office complained about this, suggesting a difference in

perspective at the district and regional level:

I think the trainings were good but there was no follow-up to see how we have fared after the training. What if we are unable to do the trainings at the district

level; how can we tell? The problem is monitoring and feedback. We do not have a good enough system. We step in to help as and when the need arises.

Conversely, respondents at the district reported regular follow-up after UNICEF-supported trainings.

3.4.5.2 Post-Training Follow-Up: From Districts, to Schools

Teachers and education officers at the regional and district levels recognised the key role that

monitoring played in understanding whether trainings were having an impact on CD, but they also discussed challenges caused by a lack of funding for visits, limited involvement in oversight by parents and community members, and a gap in connecting monitoring to the desired outcomes

in educator performance. Monitoring was the most frequently cited need in terms of improving student, teacher, and education officer performance in Ghana. One national- level respondent said

that a lack of monitoring “is why we are not achieving our goals.” Another indicated that it was problematic that donors assumed current monitoring systems work, when these processes were actually in need of further strengthening.

Although district officers described routine school monitoring, they did not consistently understand or describe how they followed up with teachers, specifically on the application of content from UNICEF-supported trainings. Rather, in interviews and responses to the district

survey, they discussed looking at children’s exercise books, observing whether teachers were in the classroom, looking at lesson notes, and observing the lessons themselves when on these visits

—and teachers corroborated this when describing the type of monitoring that occurred at schools. Responses to the teacher survey also highlighted the gap in ongoing CD efforts between district

officers and circuit supervisors and the school level. Table 24 reveals that, when asked how their capacities were built by district and circuit officers, the majority of teachers stated CD occurred

through trainings and workshops.



Table 24. Teacher Perceptions on CD Support from District Officers

How are the District and Circuit officers building the capacity of

the staff? Freq. Percent

Regular post-training monitoring visits 6 6

Organize regular cluster-based or school-based INSET 5 5

Participatory open-door consultative meetings 6 6

Regular check-ups and orientation for new members 2 2

Regular post-training monitoring visits 6 6

They help us to prepare relevant lesson plans 10 10

Through regular visits, supervision 31 31

Through the trainings/workshops organised for teachers in the

district 34 34

Total 100 100

In interviews, respondents presented the monitoring planning tool that officers used for the

evaluation team. However, with the exception of the CFS checklist, officers did not mention the existence of any tools that examined whether training concepts were being used at schools or in the classrooms. One respondent also questioned whether officers truly understood the theory of

change that should inform how they monitored:

I think the disconnect comes . . . when we find it difficult to distinguish outputs and outcomes . . . let’s have the activities done, and we concentrate little on why

we are even doing the activity and how we even determine whether . . . that reason or objective is being achieved at the end.

Ensuring that regular and frequent monitoring visits take place is a common challenge for district

officers and circuit supervisors. One circuit supervisor in Savelugu-Nanton said: “The minimum you are supposed to visit a school is four times [per term]. We try as much as possible even with

constraints to visit the school often.” Most respondents to the district survey also indicated that they conducted school visits two to five times per term. Although several respondents in district-level interviews explained that they did receive more funding in the past year to conduct

monitoring visits, some still reported that this was insufficient. Numerous individuals mentioned using their own income to pay for fuel to conduct school visits, which is the “core work” of

monitoring teaching and learning.

3.4.6 Accountability and Ownership

Although numerous stakeholders described having an impact at the individual level, UNICEF identified “collective transformation” as the most challenging aspect of CD. The majority of officers at the national, regional, and district offices identified reliance on NGOs for financial

and material resources as a fundamental obstacle to sustainability of change within the education system. Officers said that NGOs “actually help us more than the GoG” and that “our reliance on

donors is another disconnect” that was evident in day-to-day activities at district and regional



offices. Respondents also referred to a lack of personal ownership and commitment in district offices, schools, and broader communities. One officer in Builsa North outlined the challenge:

Ownership in the sense that the communities do not see the schools as their own; they see it as government, they see the teachers as government teachers, you

understand, so the involvement is low. The teachers themselves don’t see, they don’t take their jobs as though it is an obligation that it is the reason they want to get paid a month. . . . Even officers in the directorate, we have people . . . they

write their names in the morning and that is all.

Multiple people indicated that a major constraint to improvements in the education system was

the lack of a sense of ownership in improving student learning outcomes among district officers, teachers, parents, and community members. To this end respondents noted that parents were not used to volunteering in the school environment, which made the expectation of supporting school

monitoring and management difficult to implement. The SMCs and PTAs were expected to link the community to the school and play an active role in fundraising for schools when necessary.

When asked if parents volunteered willingly for their children’s school, one member of the SMC at Pong Tamale Experimental School said, “They are not used to that” and that the SMC and PTA pitched in for these roles instead. To further involve parents, another member of the SMC at

Pong Tamale Experimental School discussed a possible initiative that involved parents’ monitoring teaching and learning at schools on a rotating basis: “We will see whether we can get a

roster for that, but we have not been able to do it, which has been on our plan for a very long time now.” At the time of data collection, one member of the SMC at Pong Tamale Experimental School mentioned supervision that they conducted at the school but did not say whether this

occurred on a formal and regular basis.

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations Our evaluation found an overwhelmingly positive response to UNICEF-supported CD interventions in the education sector from facilitators, participants, and stakeholders. That said, a

number of recommendations emerged during the evaluation and through the process of validating the evaluation findings. These recommendations are presented below according to

relevance, effectiveness, impact and sustainability, and systems and planning.

4.1 Relevance Below we present several recommendations relevant for future CD interventions falling under

the area of relevance. The most critical recommendation in this category involves conducting needs assessments prior to designing CD efforts; additional recommendations include providing CD support to teachers that recognise available resources, ensuring that all teachers are using the

most up to date syllabus and curriculum, and delivering sufficient training for teachers on core subjects such as English, science, and mathematics.

Conduct needs assessments on a regular basis at the school and

district levels

We recommend conducting a formal needs assessment at a set frequency at the district level that consults individuals at all levels of the education sector in order to identify specific capacity gaps at schools, communities, and district offices. A needs assessment

can identify the support needed in classroom instruction, the gaps in teacher and student



performance, and the limitations in terms of financial and material resources will inform the design of targeted, demand-driven CD interventions.

In low-resource environments, train teachers to use innovative

substitutes for typical teaching and learning materials (TLMs)

The design of teacher trainings focused on teaching methodologies and core subject areas

should factor in the lack of resources in schools and district education offices, identify locally available materials for teachers to use, and train them on the practical use of these in the classroom as TLM substitutes. Using a needs assessment to identify what is

available in school communities and classrooms specifically could support this process.

Strike a balance when designing trainings in order to meet identified

needs in both pedagogy/teaching methodologies and challenging

concepts within core subjects

While respondents regarded the trainings they received on cross-cutting issues such as

gender-sensitive pedagogy as highly relevant, they also reiterated their continued need for support in core subjects at the primary school level (grades 1-6). The Savelugu Nanton

DTST indicated that it had been at least three to four years since its members had attended refresher trainings in English, mathematics, or science, subjects that were frequently identified as the most pressing subjects where additional technical support

from resource persons would be valuable. Ensuring that findings from a needs assessment inform CD training design in both pedagogy and core content areas is therefore key to

meeting teachers’ needs in the classroom.

Help teachers access the soft copies of the syllabus/curriculum

CD support provided to facilitate the teaching and learning process is the most effective

when it is relevant to what teachers are teaching. However, district officers in Builsa North emphasised that the current curriculum had not reached its schools, and that many schools were still using the 2007 syllabus (which has since been updated). This means

that students are unprepared for any national exams because teachers continue to “teach for questions that won’t be seen on the exam.” Working with the GES so that schools

across all districts receive the same core teaching resources (especially national curricula) is essential to ensuring that district offices and schools across the country are on the same page. Circulating soft copies of the syllabus and curriculum at district offices for teachers

to access would accomplish this.

4.2 Effectiveness The recommendations related to effectiveness include creating and formalising coordination

processes at the regional and district levels as well as exploring alternative ways to deliver CD to counter the weaknesses of the cascade model to trainings and spacing workshops or trainings to

ensure that participants have time to implement new training concepts.

Identify and formalize a coordination system at the regional and

district levels to avoid duplication of CD support & training fatigue

The education mapping exercise referenced by respondents at the national level should be shared with district officers in order to facilitate coordination with NGOs and other



funders working in schools across districts. We recommend that UNICEF support the creation of formalised coordination processes to take place at set frequencies not only at

the national level (where it already plays a critical role), but also for actors at the regional and district levels, so that trainings are evenly delivered and spaced across and within

districts.

Deliver CD Using a Blend of Approaches to Mitigate the Limitations of

the Cascade Model

Providing additional support to DTST members and encouraging them to convene teachers on a more regular basis for cluster-based INSETs on CD topics would also

ensure that teachers receive targeted CD that does not rely so heavily on the cascade model.

Ensure Adequate Spacing of Trainings

Many respondents in interviews and focus groups expressed the view that teachers should

have more time in the classroom to implement new teaching practices before being called to the next workshop. We recommend that future trainings take timing into consideration to ensure that teachers have adequate time to absorb each new concept or pedagogy and

can consequently build their skills in a sustainable, long-term manner that translates to changes in instructional behaviours and subsequent improvements in student learning

outcomes.

4.3 Impact/Sustainability Findings suggest that in order for CD support to have more of an impact and be sustained, participants in the CD process should be encouraged to learn from one another and how they are

applying CD on the ground. Perhaps most integral to the CD process at the school level is increasing buy-in and ownership of school performance by school communities, who should play

a role in encouraging teachers to improve their capacities, holding schools accountable for their children’s learning outcomes, and supporting girls’ education.

Identify opportunities for peer learning using mobile technology to

connect individuals that are moderated by circuit supervisor Both teachers and education officials indicated a desire to learn from what other teachers

and schools are doing in their classrooms in addition to learning in more traditional workshop and training settings. Teachers in particular are interested in learning from their

peers in terms of how they overcome the lack of teaching and learning materials in the classroom. To this end one district official from Builsa North suggested, “…more training can also be given to the teachers then maybe you can also go to other schools and

also learn from the way they are managing their schools and how teaching and learning is going on.” We recommend exploring ways to facilitate peer learning as an approach to

CD amongst district officers and particularly amongst teachers. Convening teachers from a given circuit at a set frequency to discuss solutions to subjects or challenges identified in INSETs would support this. Additionally, we recommend exploring the use of

technology to overcome issues of distance and resources that are required to bring people together. One tool that could support this is in the Ghanaian context is Whatsapp, which

could connect teachers of a given class or subject area. Encouraging a district officer or circuit supervisor to facilitate Whatsapp groups by regularly asking questions to the



group and spurring conversations to share ideas would also help ensure that this platform is used consistently and regularly by teachers.

Design Support that Directly Targets CD within the Education Sector

at the Organisational and Institutional Environment Levels

The evaluation found that while the organisational and institutional levels were indirectly

included in the CD support provided to district officers and head teachers, the capacity point of entry largely remained at the individual level. UNICEF should explore ways in which organisational and institutional capacity can be more directly targeted in future CD

efforts. Other recommendations listed here explicitly target these levels of capacity in the education sector, such as supporting the development of peer learning systems, greater

engagement with school communities, and strengthening and formalising coordination, monitoring, and accountability systems.

Develop strategies for engaging and building capacity within

communities Respondents at all levels referenced the need for greater community- level engagement to

support school performance broadly as well as girls’ education, which many suggested could be achieved through further sensitization efforts on the importance of educating girls. Numerous others echoed the need to look at the full picture (including families and

communities) when considering how to improve learning outcomes. One district officer in Builsa North stated that improving linkages and creating a sense of teamwork amongst

those working in the education sphere could facilitate greater ownership. School communities’ ownership over schools and student learning can also be addressed through engagement with the media (for example delivering messaging through community radio

stations), and through student clubs such as girls’ groups that engage with parents in their activities.

4.4 Systems and Planning The final three recommendations are truly cross-cutting and apply to the overarching systems and planning thematic area. The first is to strengthen educational structures so that they are

functional and can facilitate CD processes; the second is to develop a comprehensive M&E framework to record not only what CD efforts are delivered but more importantly how the support translates into behaviour change at the district and school levels; the third is to

complement an M&E framework with an accountability system to ensure measures are in place that hold participants in the CD process accountable to improving their performance.

Strengthen existing structures (SMCs, PTAs, DEOCs, Regional

Education Offices)

Findings suggest that SMCs, PTAs, and DEOCs appear not to be functioning as intended in Savelugu Nanton and Builsa North. In order to achieve capacity development not only at the individual level but also at the organisational and later environmental levels, the

structures in place in Ghana’s education system first have to be operational. Conducting a needs assessment should identify what level of capacity these structures currently have,

and also may provide insights into why they are not functioning properly. Stakeholders can then develop targeted CD interventions to bring each body up to par in its ability to



carry out designated functions – for example, at the school community level, SMCs should be involved in the development of the SPIP. These should be accompanied by

sensitisation on roles and responsibilities that motivate members of the different bodies to facilitate and engage in the process of CD for themselves and for district officers, head

teachers, and teachers. Findings also suggest that regional officers in both qualitative study districts felt excluded following decentralisation processes; we recommend incorporating additional capacity development efforts for regional officers into the CD

process in order for them to appreciate where they fit into the vision of education decentralisation, how their roles and responsibilities may differ now because of it, and

how they should fulfil these duties.

Develop a comprehensive M&E Framework to integrate monitoring of

application of CD concepts

Although monitoring and reporting are the primary ways in which district officers and teachers are held accountable for their performance, monitoring is sometimes infrequent

and monitoring of capacity development specifically is insufficient. We recommend that based on what is identified in a formal needs assessment, UNICEF support the

development of a comprehensive strategy for future CD efforts in the education sector in Ghana. This should be accompanied by the development of a comprehensive M&E framework to ensure that monitoring of the CD process takes place on a regular basis.

This framework should recognise the limited resources for frequent visits by circuit supervisors to schools, and instead support head teachers and community structures to

play a role in the monitoring process. Our evaluation found that the CFS checklist was widely mentioned and used by respondents, suggesting that a physical checklist or tool is a valuable method to promote adoption of training content as well as subsequent

monitoring. We recommend that an M&E framework make use of similar self-assessment methods used by teachers themselves. Head Teachers should be provided further training

in supervision and monitoring so that they can be a stronger resource for circuit supervisors in the monitoring process. Additionally, SMCs and PTAs can also be provided with specific tools and guidelines to monitor time spent on classroom

instruction and regular student/teacher attendance; having individuals at different levels collect data validates findings regarding the level of CD taking place amongst teachers

and of the school at the organisational level. To ensure that an M&E framework is effectively used by stakeholders, UNICEF should

1) support the creation of monitoring tools (using qualitative and quantitative methods) that incorporate measures on capacity development, 2) train individuals at all levels on

how to complete the tool(s) and how to use the data captured to provide feedback and increase accountability, and 3) identify and facilitate a mechanism through which monitoring data can shared in a consultative way promoting learning in the CD process.

The Standalone M&E Note developed by AIR15 could be a useful tool to reference as UNICEF develops this framework and process.

15 American Institutes for Research (2017). What Works in Monitoring and Evaluation for Capacity Development in

the Education Sector: Recommendations for Ghana. Washington, DC.



Develop accountability systems to ensure leaders at all levels are

held responsible for student learning outcomes

Respondents expressed several concerns about keeping staff at the district and school levels accountable in terms of applying training content. An M&E framework should be

accompanied by an effective accountability system, so that should monitoring determine any given stakeholder is not performing, he or she is held accountable and motivated to

improve. A system should be developed through consultation with stakeholders at all levels of the education sector to encourage ownership over the system and designate roles and responsibilities. Given the constraint of limited resources for in-person monitoring,

the MSRC pilot that UNICEF supported – which participants found effective in terms of increasing school-level accountability – could be an intervention to consider scaling, if

costs could be kept low. Engaging with the broader school community is key to accountability at the school level, while DEOCs could play a role in holding district officers accountable to their responsibilities. Several respondents also suggested that

donors or NGOs could make use of performance-based contracts to improve district and school-level accountability.



References

Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., Church, M., & Fort., L. (2004). Shoestring evaluation: Designing

impact evaluations under budget, time, and data constraints. American Journal of

Evaluation 25(1):5–37.

Gertler, P., Martinez, S., Premand, P. Rawlings, L., & Vermeersch, C. (2011). Impact evaluation

in practice. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Herz, B., & Sperling, G. B. (2004). What works in girls' education: Evidence and policies from

the developing world. New York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations.

Khandker, S. R. (1996). Education achievements and school efficiency in Rural Bangladesh.

Washington, DC: World Bank.

Lloyd, C., Mete, C., & Grant, M. (2007). Rural girls in Pakistan: Constraints of policy and

culture. In M. Lewis, & M. Lockheed (Eds.), Exclusion, Gender and Education: Case

Studies from the Developing World (pp. 99-118). Washington, DC: Center for Global

Development.

Rihani, M. A. (2006). Keeping the promise: Five benefits of girls' secondary education.

Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.

Rugh, A. (2000). Starting now: Strategies for helping girls complete primary. Strategies for

Advancing Girls' Education Project. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational

Development.

Sperling, G., & Winthrop, R. (2016). What works in girls’ education. Washington, DC:

Brookings Institution Press. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2016/07/whatworksingirlseducation1.pdf

United Nations Development Programme. (2008). Supporting capacity development: The UNDP

approach. New York, NY: Bureau for Development Policy, Capacity Development

Group. Retrieved from

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity-

development/support-capacity-development-the-undp-

approach/CDG_Brochure_2009.pdf

USAID. (2014). Post-implementation evaluation report: Evaluation of the more investment in

sustainable alternative development and areas for municipal alternative development

programs. Washington, DC: Author.

Warwick, D. P., & Jatoi, H. (1994). Teacher gender and student achievement in Pakistan.

Comparative Education Review, 38(3), 377–400.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/whatworksingirlseducation1.pdf

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/whatworksingirlseducation1.pdf

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity-development/support-capacity-development-the-undp-approach/CDG_Brochure_2009.pdf




UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—A–1

Appendix A. Resource Needs Respondents at all levels discussed a lack of resources that impact the extent to which they are able to carry out their responsibilities and apply the concepts of CD trainings effectively. In this

section we present findings related to the types of resources that regional and district officers and teachers view as critical to their roles, as well as who provides these currently.

Physical Resources

The majority of regional and district-level officials complained about the lack of supplies, maintaining that the only materials they receive regularly are from UNICEF or other donor

agencies. Several district officials from Builsa North recalled receiving occasional inputs (e.g., lamps and bicycles for girls) but not in sufficient quantity. Several respondents also complained

about the physical infrastructure of their offices, including one official from Builsa North, who stated: “I have a computer, I have table and chair, but we are five in the office, so this not conducive. You can’t sit and do your work properly.”

At the district level, most physical resource needs are

related to transportation. For example, a number of circuit supervisors indicated that they do

not receive sufficient funds to fuel their motorbikes to make

school visits. A district official from Savelugu-Nanton said, “We don’t have means of transport or

fuel to get to the community to monitor.” A fellow district

official added that they need computers (“where I can be building my data”) and reiterated

the issue of transport:

I don’t have means of transport. Sometimes you have to fall on somebody to get

means or wait for director, when he is free, you can take the vehicle. Sometimes when the vehicle is even there, fueling it becomes a problem.

The special education coordinator from Savelugu-Nanton is waiting on very specific inputs,

namely screening materials for new schools and wheelchairs (which are in Accra but have not been transported to Tamale).

Teachers, on the other hand, commented on the shortage of many critical materials, such as exercise books, supplementary readers, textbooks, and visual teaching aids (for example, to show shapes such as a polygon or a cylinder). At Rashidiya Primary School, several teachers also

commented on the school’s infrastructure shortcomings. For example, there is no playing field at the school, no source of potable water, limited tables and chairs, and broken desks. In some

Resource Challenges

“I will say nothing is here; anything you see here is either UNICEF, WFP, Learning, or LINK who supported. But the

central government, nothing, even A4 sheet which is basic here, we don’t have, you have to go and beg. How much will you beg, how much will you get to be able to write

correspondence to 13 districts and sometimes you have to write three, four, or five letters differently, and that is a basic thing, stationary is a basic thing. We don’t have how more

talk about car. Even the director, when she is traveling she has to take public means; she can’t go with her car, the car cannot even take her to Tamale.”

—Regional Education Officer, Upper East



classrooms, three or four students share a desk meant for two pupils. The school building itself was described as “old, cracking” and classrooms were described as “congested.”

Table 25 presents the findings from the school survey on teaching and learning materials. Although most school-level survey respondents reported having teaching and learning materials

(with the exception of mathematics and science equipment), the majority of respondents only considered one material (boards/writing material) to be adequate. In most cases, teaching and learning materials were provided either by NGOs/Development Partners or by the government.

Table 25: Teaching and Learning Materials

Yes

(n)

Are they

adequate? (%)

Who provided them? (%)

School Parents

NGOs/

DPs/Other GoG

Black/white boards 100 77.0 8.4 3.2 3.2 85.3

Chalk/markers 98 64.3 7.2 1.0 1.0 90.7

Computers/tablets 59 3.4 7.4 1.9 18.5 72.2

Concrete objects 74 17.6 22.2 0 27.8 50.0

Dictionary 91 42.9 2.2 0 5.5 92.3

Materials for pre-vocational studies

3 33.3 50.0 0 0 50.0

Math equipment 35 0.0 34.4 3.1 6.3 56.3

Notebooks 83 29.9 6.0 45.8 0 48.2

Pens/pencils 79 63.3 3.9 91.0 1.3 3.9

Posters 82 24.4 21.8 0 35.9 42.3

Science equipment 8 12.5 0 0 33.3 66.7

Textbooks 95 8.4 4.3 1.1 3.2 91.5

Workbooks 39 23.1 2.6 23.1 2.6 71.8

TOTAL 100 36.3 9.3 14.8 11.9 64.0

According to teachers from Pong Tamale Experimental School, UNICEF and Right to Play are

providing critical inputs: Teachers reported that the furniture and chalk they use comes from UNICEF, as do the teaching and learning materials (including a science box) and storybooks.

Right to Play provides footballs and teaching and learning materials. Rashidiya Primary School teachers reported receiving similar items—books, pens, pencils, and uniforms—from the Global Partnership for Education Grant (GPEG) and Camfed. However, numerous teachers, including

one from Pong Tamale Experimental School, expressed that the resources provided are insufficient: “I would say some resources are available but they are not even enough.” District

officials spoke more confidently than teachers about the resources the district office provides to teachers and school administrators, with respondents to the district survey indicating that they provide schools with lesson planning materials (38 responses), teaching and learning materials

(32 responses), support for community engagement (18 responses), and ICT software (10 responses).



Given the lack of basic material resources in many schools, it is not surprising that most teachers do not use computers for lesson planning, administrative work, or classroom instruction. Table

26 shows computer usage by teachers, according to school-level survey respondents.

Table 26: Computer Usage by Teachers

District Preparing Lesson Notes

Administrative Work Teaching

Builsa North 10.0 60.0 40.0

Garu-Tempane 20.0 80.0 50.0

Karaga 10.0 30.0 20.0

Komenda Edina Eguafo Abirem 0.0 60.0 40.0

Kwahu Afram Plains North 20.0 40.0 10.0

Lambussie Karni 0.0 23.1 0.0

Savelugu-Nanton 30.0 40.0 10.0

Upper Denkyira West 0.0 40.0 30.0

Upper Manya Krobo 0.0 30.0 40.0

Wa East 0.0 0.0 14.3

Total (N=100) 9.0 41.0 25.0


UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—B–1

Appendix B. Instruments

District Level KII Participant Verbal Consent Form

“Hello. How are you? My name is [ENUMERATOR NAME], and I am working with a team

from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the University of Ghana. We are conducting a study about UNICEF’s support to the education sector in Ghana, and your district was chosen because of the trainings you have received in the past two years. The purpose of this

this discussion is to obtain more in-depth information about your experience with capacity development trainings. We hope that this information will eventually benefit future trainings by

allowing us to understand what is working well with both the trainings and systems in place what can be improved in order to better support the education sector in Ghana. Information you share will help UNICEF identify better approaches to support education improvements in Ghana.

Your name will be kept private and separate from the evaluation. Only AIR and researchers working with AIR will have access to your name and the details of your results, and this will

only be used for follow-up and directly related research purposes. All information that is collected in this study will be treated confidentially. While aggregated results will be made available, no individuals will be identified in any report of the results of the study. There is

minimal risk involved in the assessment. You also do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Not answering the questionnaire will not hinder your access to any service

you are currently receiving or may receive from UNICEF or the GES. Everything you say will be kept confidential. You may indicate at any time if you do not want to be quoted.

Participation in this discussion is voluntary, and any individual may withdraw at any time.

Today’s session will take about one hour. For reference and to clarify notes, we would like to record the session. You may request that we stop recording at any point during the interview.

The recording will be saved on a secure computer network, and no one outside of our research team will have access to the recording. If you would like us to turn off the recorder at any point, you may say so. If you have questions about the interview, please contact either:

Clement Adamba, School of Education and Leadership, College of Education (Tel. +233 (0) 244973913), P. O Box LG 1181, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra

or

Hannah Ring, American Institutes for Research (Tel. +1 202-403-6715), 1000 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA

If you have concerns or questions about your rights as a participant, contact the American Institutes for Research Institutional Review Board (which is responsible for the protection of

project participants) at [email protected], or +1 202-403-5542, or by postal mail: AIR c/o IRB, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA

Is there any part of this explanation that you do not understand? Will you please give me some

time to speak with you? Please feel free to ask if you have any questions at any time, even before I start.

mailto:[email protected]



Thank you for your participation today. Today we are interested in learning about your experience working in the District Education Office. If you are ready, let’s begin.

Introduction 1. Name and position at the district office

2. How long have you been working at this office? Have you held any other positions at this district office?

a. Have you worked previously at any other district education offices? If so, for how

long and what positions did you hold there? 3. Did you begin your career as a teacher? If no, how did you come to work in the field of

education? 4. How would you define ‘capacity development?’ What does it mean to you? Now I’d like to talk about how planning processes work at the district level.

Monitoring & Support 5. Can you describe how you communicate with:

a. Headquarters? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them? b. Regional Office? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to

them?

c. Circuit supervisors? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them?

d. Head teachers? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them? e. Teachers? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them?

6. Can you talk a bit about the visits you make to schools?

a. What is the purpose of school visits? Who conducts school visits? Is it the same person each time? Who do you meet with when visiting the school? What do you

monitor at the school? 7. What resources does your office provide for teachers in this district? School administrators in

this district? Resources may refer to both materials (e.g. lesson planning materials, ICT

software) and support (e.g. supporting community engagement efforts, facilitating the process of school-fundraising)

Now let’s discuss issues surrounding girls’ access to and enrollment in primary school in Ghana…

Girls’ education 8. Can you tell me about the challenges facing girls’ access and enrollment in school at the

primary and junior high level? a. Are these challenges different depending on the part of the country/region/district?

How so?

9. How do you think schools can help girls and their families address these constraints? 10. Do you think there are enough female teachers in your district?

11. Please explain what your understanding of INSET is at the: district level; circuit level; school-level; cluster level.

Participation in Trainings

12. Are you aware of or have you participated in any of the below trainings? If yes: please refer

to questions 14 a-e about each training

a. Gender-responsive pedagogy training b. Gender-based activities training



c. Child Friendly Schools d. Orientation on equity issues in education

e. Leadership for Learning f. Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills

13. If you participated, please tell me: a. Please describe the most important concepts you learned in the training. b. What were the positive aspects of the training? What about negative aspects? Please

describe. c. Was the training delivered by an education professional? Was he or she

knowledgeable about the training topic?

d. Can you talk about how the training was conducted? i. Did they involve (check if yes): activities requiring your participation, such as

practical exercises, discussions, or games? Did the trainer check in with you periodically to ensure your understanding of the concepts? Did the trainer

seek your feedback periodically? Did the trainer place more emphasis on certain concepts? Did the trainer engage your interest throughout the training?

e. Would you like to offer suggestions for improving the training in the future?

14. Following the trainings we’ve discussed today, do you receive any kind of follow up visits from those who trained you?

15. Are there any specific materials that you need in order to apply the lessons from the trainings?

a. If yes: Can you tell me about these? Do you currently have access to these materials?

16. Do you still have the materials you received during the trainings? If no, why not? a. If yes, do you use these materials? In what ways? How often?

17. Are you able to apply the practices you have learned in your trainings in your daily tasks? a. If yes, how do you do this? Which training concepts are you using in particular? b. If no, why are you not able to do this?

c. Do you think the trainings have helped improve your work performance? If so, how so?

18. Mentoring a. Do you currently have a mentor, or someone who supports your professional

development at the district office?

b. If so, can you please tell me about this person? Who is it, and how did they become your mentor? What support and guidance do you receive? How does this help your

career growth? c. If not, do you think that having a mentor would be helpful to your career growth?

Why or why not?

d. Do you yourself mentor anyone? How did you come to do this?

Now I want to ask about your experience with delivering trainings...

Training Delivery & Monitoring 19. Can you talk about the ADEOP design process?

a. Who is involved in this? Please tell me about the people who support you as well if

not part of the district team? b. How long does the planning take?

c. What steps are involved in developing and finalizing the ADEOP?



d. Has this process changed in the past two years? If so: please describe what has changed?

20. Is it feasible to follow the ADEOPs once they are finalized? a. Please tell me about how ADEOPs are used once finalized. Who specifically uses

them at the office? How? b. What challenges exist to performing the tasks listed in the ADEOPs? c. In what ways are the ADEOPs helpful?

d. Are there any ways that the ADEOPs could better help you plan for activities? 21. Can you tell me about how you decide on trainings that should take place for teachers?

a. Do you identify and include specific trainings within the ADEOPs? b. How do you identify what topic to conduct a training on?

i. Do you receive information that highlights a need or information gap before

you decide on a training topic? How do you gather or receive this information?

ii. Are staff at your office involved in any kind of needs assessments for teachers, head teachers, or circuit supervisors? If no, who is involved in this?

iii. How often do these assessments occur?

c. How do you determine the frequency with which trainings should occur? iv. Does the ADEOP include multiple instances of the same training? Why/why

not? 22. Can you talk a bit about what your involvement is with training head teachers, circuit

supervisors, and teachers? If not involved, skip #27-32

a. What trainings have head teachers and teachers received in the past two years? (after respondent lists the trainings, ask #27-32 about each training mentioned)

23. Were the objectives of the trainings clearly defined to you as a teacher trainer? Were they realistic?

24. Can you talk about the participants of the trainings?

a. Do you believe that the appropriate participants were included in this training? If not: why not? Who should have been included instead?

b. Do you think it is effective to have the head teachers attend the bulk of the teacher trainings? Why/why not?

25. Can you talk about how you conducted the training? As in, how did you work with

participants to transfer knowledge (for example, did you use lecturing, practical exercises)? Please be specific.

26. Do you believe the training content was sensitive to the constraints of schools? 27. Did you request feedback from training participants? If yes, at what points during the

trainings?

a. What did you do once you had this feedback? 28. Do you think that head teachers/training participants are applying the learning from

the trainings in the classroom?

a. Why do you believe this? b. Do you follow up with head teachers and teachers who attended trainings conducted

by district officials? c. What (if any) follow-up support or assistance did training participants receive in order

to transfer or apply their learning?



29. What are your thoughts on the cascade approach to teacher training, which is used

frequently in Ghana?

a. Please tell me what you think the main strengths you see in the cascade approach? Challenges?

30. Do you have any recommendations on ways teacher training in Ghana can be improved?

Now I want to ask you a few questions about how much progress your office is making in growing and implementing new planning and training practices.

Sustainability & Accountability 31. Do you feel that the resources you need to complete your work (specifically pertaining to

resources needed for capacity development) are available to you? Specifically, do you have access to the following kinds of resources:

a. Physical resources needed to perform duties at the office

b. Access to trainings to improve your performance, manuals on roles and responsibilities, other learning materials on fulfilling your work

c. Technical support from other staff at the district, regional, and national office? 32. Do you feel that the district director and other district leadership are committed to capacity

development? If so, how can you tell? If not, why not?

33. How are staff held accountable to fulfilling their roles and responsibilities at your office? a. Do you have any incentives to thoroughly fulfilling the responsibilities required of

your position? For example, is there a better chance of promotion if you do so? b. Do you believe it is possible to improve the ways staff are held accountable to their

tasks at the district office?

i. How so? 34. What do you believe is needed to improve leadership and management at the district office?

At the regional level? At the national level? 35. UNICEF and other partners have invested heavily in capacity development and

training interventions for teachers and education officials, and yet student learning

outcomes have still not improved to the extent we would like to see. What do you think

the reason for this is? Where do you think the disconnect is between the number of

trainings and the lack of improvement in student learning?

Thank respondent



DTST FGD Participant Verbal Consent Form


from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the University of Ghana. We are conducting a study about UNICEF’s support to the education sector in Ghana, and your district

was chosen because of the trainings you have received in the past two years. The purpose of this this discussion is to obtain more in-depth information about your experience with capacity development trainings. We hope that this information will eventually benefit future trainings by

allowing us to understand what is working well with both the trainings and systems in place what can be improved in order to better support the education sector in Ghana. Information you share

will help UNICEF identify better approaches to support education improvements in Ghana.


only be used for follow-up and directly related research purposes. All information that is collected in this study will be treated confidentially. While aggregated results will be made

available, no individuals will be identified in any report of the results of the study. There is minimal risk involved in the assessment. You also do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Not answering the questionnaire will not hinder your access to any service




The recording will be saved on a secure computer network, and no one outside of our research team will have access to the recording. If you would like us to turn off the recorder at any point,

you may say so. If you have questions about the interview, please contact either:


or

Hannah Ring, American Institutes for Research (Tel. +1 202-403-6715), 1000 Thomas Jefferson

St. NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA



Is there any part of this explanation that you do not understand? Will you please give me some time to speak with you? Please feel free to ask if you have any questions at any time, even before I start.

Thank you for your participation today. Today we are interested in learning about your experience working on the DTST. If you are ready, let’s begin.




Introduction 1. Name and position at the district office

2. How long have you been working at this office? Have you held any other positions at this district office?

a. Have you worked previously at any other district education offices? If so, for how long and what positions did you hold there?

3. Did you begin your career as a teacher? If no, how did you come to work in the field of

education? 4. How would you define ‘capacity development?’ What does it mean to you?

Now I’d like to talk about how planning processes work at the district level.

Planning 5. Does the DTST help determine what trainings are needed and when to conduct them? How

do you do this? 6. Can you describe how you communicate with:

a. Circuit supervisors? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them?

b. Head teachers? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them?

c. Teachers? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them? 7. Does the DTST ever make visits to schools?

a. If so, what is the purpose of school visits? Who conducts school visits? Is it the same person each time? Who do you meet with when visiting the school? What do you monitor at the school?

8. Can you tell me about how you decide on trainings that should take place for teachers? 9. How do you identify what topic to conduct a training on?

a. Do you receive information that highlights a need or information gap before you decide on a training topic? How do you gather or receive this information?

b. Are staff at your office involved in any kind of needs assessments for teachers, head

teachers, or administrators? If no, who is involved in this? c. How often do these assessments occur?

Girls’ education and Learning into Practice 10. Can you tell me about the challenges facing girls’ access and enrollment in school at the


How so? 11. How do you think schools can help girls and their families address these constraints? 12. Do you think there are enough female teachers in your district?

Now I’d like to talk about trainings that you have received as the DTST…

Training received

13. Did you receive a training on (please ask the training topic one by one – if the official answers yes, please proceed with questions 14-a.-e. about each training)

a. Gender-responsive pedagogy training

b. Gender-based activities training c. Child Friendly Schools

d. Orientation on equity issues in education



e. Leadership for Learning? f. Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills?

14. If you participated in the training, please tell me: a. Please describe the most important concepts you learned in the training.

b. What were the positive aspects of the training? What about challenges? Please describe.

c. Was the training delivered by an education professional? Was he or she


d. Can you talk about how the training was conducted?

i. Did they involve (check if yes): activities requiring your participation, such as practical exercises, discussions, or games? Did the trainer check in with you periodically to ensure your understanding of the concepts? Did the trainer


e. Would anyone like to offer suggestions for improving the training in the future? 15. Following the trainings we’ve discussed today, do you receive any kind of follow up visits

from those who trained you?


a. If yes: Can you tell me about these? Do you currently have access to these materials? 17. Do you still have the materials you received during the trainings? If no, why not?

a. If yes, do you use these materials? In what ways? How often?

18. Are you able to apply the practices you have learned in your trainings in your daily tasks? a. If yes, how do you do this? Which training concepts are you using in particular?

b. If no, why are you not able to do this? c. Do you think the trainings have helped improve your work performance? If so, how so?

Mentoring

19. Do you currently have a mentor, or someone who supports your professional development at the district office?

a. If so, can you please tell me about this person? Who is it, and how did they become your mentor? What support and guidance do you receive? How does this help your career growth?

b. If not, do you think that having a mentor would be helpful to your career growth? Why or why not?

c. Do you yourself mentor anyone? How did you come to do this?

Now I want to ask about your experience with designing and delivering trainings...

Training Design, Delivery, Monitoring

20. Can you talk a bit about what your involvement is with training head teachers, circuit supervisors, and teachers?

a. What trainings have you conducted for circuit supervisors, head teachers, and teachers in the past two years? (after head teacher lists the trainings, ask #21-25

about each training mentioned)

21. Were the objectives of the trainings clearly defined to you as a teacher trainer? Were they realistic?

22. Can you talk about the participants of the trainings?



a. Do you believe that the appropriate participants were included in this training? If not: why not? Who should have been included instead?

b. Do you think it is effective to have the head teachers attend the bulk of the teacher trainings? Why/why not?

23. Can you talk about how you conducted the training? As in, how did you work with participants to transfer knowledge (for example, did you use lecturing, practical exercises)? Please be specific.

24. Do you believe the training content was sensitive to the constraints of schools? 25. Did you request feedback from training participants? If yes, at what points during the trainings?

a. What did you do once you had this feedback? 26. Do you think that head teachers/training participants are applying the learning from

the trainings in the classroom?

a. Why do you believe this? b. Do you follow up with head teachers and teachers who attended trainings conducted

by district officials? c. What (if any) follow-up support or assistance did training participants receive in order

to transfer or apply their learning?

27. What are your thoughts on the cascade approach to teacher training, which is used

frequently in Ghana?

a. Please tell me what you think the main strengths you see in the cascade approach? Challenges?


Now I want to ask you a few questions about how much progress your office is making in growing and implementing new planning and training practices.

Sustainability & Accountability 29. Do you feel that the resources you need to complete your work are available to you? 30. Do you feel that the district director and other district leadership are committed to capacity

development? If so, how can you tell? If not, why not? 31. How are staff held accountable to fulfilling their roles and responsibilities as a DTST?

a. Do you have any incentives to thoroughly fulfilling the responsibilities required of your position as members of the DTST? For example, is there a better chance of promotion if you do so?

b. Do you believe it is possible to improve the ways staff are held accountable to their tasks at the district office? How so?

32. What do you believe is needed to improve leadership and management at the district office? At the regional level? At the national level?

33. UNICEF and other partners have invested heavily in capacity development and





Conclusion

Ask respondents if they have anything else to share about their experience serving on the DTST. Thank respondents for their time.



Regional Level KII Participant Verbal Consent Form


from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the University of Ghana. We are conducting a study about UNICEF’s support to the education sector in Ghana, and your region













or






Thank you for your participation today. Today we are interested in learning about your experience working in the District Education Office. If you are ready, let’s begin.




Introduction 1. Name and position at the regional office.

2. How long have you been working at this office? Have you held any other positions at this regional office?

a. Have you worked previously at any other district or regional education offices? If so, for how long and what positions did you hold there?

3. Did you begin your career as a teacher? If no, how did you come to work in the field of

education? 4. How would you define ‘capacity development?’ What does it mean to you?

Now I’d like to talk about how planning processes work at the district level.

Monitoring & Support 5. Can you describe if and how you communicate with:

a. National GES staff? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them?

b. District Officials? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to them?

c. Circuit supervisors? What is your relationship to them? How often do you speak to

them? 6. Can you talk a bit about the visits you make to district offices?

a. What is the purpose of district office visits? Who conducts them? Is it the same person each time? Who do you meet with when visiting the district office?

b. What do you monitor at the district office?

7. What resources does your office provide for district officials? School administrators in this region? Resources may refer to both materials (e.g. lesson planning materials, ICT software,

manuals) and support (e.g. facilitating the process of fundraising, supporting community engagement efforts)

Planning

8. Can you tell me about how you decide on trainings that should take place for district officials?

a. How do you identify what topic to conduct a training on? i. Do you receive information that highlights a need or information gap before

you decide on a training topic? How do you gather or receive this

information? ii. Are staff at your office involved in any kind of needs assessments for at the

school, circuit, or district levels? If no, who is involved in this? iii. How often do these assessments occur?

b. How do you determine the frequency with which trainings should occur?

Girls’ education 9. In your role, what is your involvement with girls’ education efforts? Are there other officials

at this office who engage more frequently with girls’ education? If yes, please describe who this is, and what your understanding of their role is.

10. Can you tell me about the challenges facing girls’ access and enrollment in school at the


How so?



11. How do you think schools can help girls and their families address these constraints? 12. Do you think there are enough female teachers in your region?

13. Did you receive a training on (please ask the training topic one by one – if the official

answers yes, please proceed with the following questions about each training)

a. Child Friendly Schools b. Orientation on equity issues in education c. Leadership for Change

d. Bottleneck Analysis in ADEOP Design e. Roles and Responsibilities training

14. If you participated, please tell me: a. Please describe the most important concepts you learned in the training. b. What were the positive aspects of the training? What about negative aspects? Please

describe. c. Was the training delivered by an education professional? Was he or she


d. Can you talk about how the training was conducted? i. Did they involve (check if yes): activities requiring your participation, such as

practical exercises, discussions, or games? Did the trainer check in with you periodically to ensure your understanding of the concepts? Did the trainer


e. Would you like to offer suggestions for improving the training in the future?

15. Following the trainings we’ve discussed today, do you receive any kind of follow up visits from those who trained you?


a. If yes: Can you tell me about these? Do you currently have access to these materials?

17. Do you still have the materials you received during the trainings? If no, why not? a. If yes, do you use these materials? In what ways? How often?

18. Are you able to apply the practices you have learned in your trainings in your daily tasks? a. If yes, how do you do this? Which training concepts are you using in particular? b. If no, why are you not able to do this?

c. Do you think the trainings have helped improve your work performance? If so, how so?

i. Do you think the trainings have contributed to changes at the district office in general? If so, how so? Please describe.

Now I want to ask about your experience with designing and delivering trainings...

Training Design, Delivery, Monitoring 19. Please explain what your understanding of INSET is: at the school-level; at the cluster level.

20. Can you talk a bit about what your involvement is with training district officials? Are you involved in training district officials on: Girls’ education, ADEOP design, Leadership for

Learning? If not involved, skip #21-25

a. What trainings have you conducted with district officials in the past two years? 21. Were the objectives of the trainings clearly defined to you as a trainer? Were they realistic?



22. Can you talk about the participants of the trainings? a. Do you believe that the appropriate participants were included in this training? If not:

why not? Who should have been included instead? b. Do you think it is effective to have the head teachers attend the bulk of the teacher

trainings? Why/why not? 23. Can you talk about how you conducted the training? As in, how did you work with

participants to transfer knowledge (for example, did you use lecturing, practical exercises)?

Please be specific. 24. Do you believe the training content was sensitive to the constraints of schools?

25. Did you request feedback from training participants? If yes, at what points during the trainings?

a. What did you do once you had this feedback?

26. Do you think that district officials are applying the learning from the trainings in the office? a. Why do you believe this?

b. Do you follow up with district officials who attended trainings conducted by regional officials?

c. What (if any) follow-up support or assistance did training participants receive in order

to transfer or apply their learning? 27. What are your thoughts on the cascade approach to teacher training, which is used frequently

in Ghana? a. Please tell me what you think the main strengths you see in the cascade approach?

Challenges?


Now I want to ask you a few questions about how much progress your office is making in

growing and implementing new planning and training practices.

Sustainability & Accountability 29. Do you feel that the resources you need to complete your work (specifically pertaining to

resources needed for capacity development) are available to you? 30. Do you feel that the leadership at the regional office are committed to capacity development?

a. If so, how can you tell? If not, why not? 31. How are staff held accountable to fulfilling their roles and responsibilities at your office?

a. Do you have any incentives to thoroughly fulfilling the responsibilities required of

your position? For example, is there a better chance of promotion if you do so? b. Do you believe it is possible to improve the ways staff are held accountable to their

tasks at the district office? i. How so?

32. What do you believe is needed to improve leadership and management at the regional office?

At the district level? At the national level? 33. UNICEF and other partners have invested heavily in capacity development and





Thank respondent



SMC FGD Participant Verbal Consent Form


from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the University of Ghana. We are conducting a study about UNICEF’s support to the education sector in Ghana, and your district













or






Thank you for your participation today. Today we are interested in learning about your experience on the SMC. If you are ready, let’s begin.




Introduction 1. Name

2. Length of time on SMC, role on SMC (detailed composition – are they teachers, parents, community members, etc.)

3. Ever been a teacher? 4. Describe involvement with this school (Probe: how, why involved) 5. How would you define ‘capacity building’? What does it mean to you?

Role & Capacity of SMC 6. Do you know the district education officials in [name of district]? If yes, what is your

relationship to them? How often do you see them? 7. Please describe the role of the SMC. How does the role of the SMC differ from the role of

the PTA?

8. Have you, as the SMC, received any trainings? If yes, what kind(s) of trainings have you received?

9. Do you use any tools or checklists? [Probe: did you use these prior to receiving training or are these new tools/checklists?]

10. Have these trainings led to any changes at the school? If yes, what changes?

11. Has your SMC received any trainings related to child-friendly schools? (For interviewer: this refers to resources in the classroom that are child-friendly [seeing the blackboard,

posters on the wall, teacher not yelling at kids, etc.] a. Have there been any physical changes to schools and/or classrooms since the

training? (For example, more posters or pictures on the wall or new furniture)?

b. Have you received any other trainings in the past two years? Please describe. 12. Are there any specific areas in which you feel your SMC needs additional training? What

are these?

School Engagement 13. Does the SMC plan or support any professional development activities for teachers?

14. Please tell me a little about the trainings teachers at your school have received. [Probe: content of training, format, duration, perceived utility]

15. Have teachers at your school received any gender-sensitive pedagogy training or other training related to girls’ education?

a. Please describe.

b. Do you think the training led to any changes in the classroom? c. Do you think teachers treat male and female students differently now (after the

training)? How so? 16. Do you think there are specific areas in which teachers at your school would benefit from

additional training? Please describe.

Community Engagement 17. Does the school engage with parents and community members to encourage parents to

support their children’s education? If so, who from the school does this? How does this engagement occur?



18. Do parents or community members volunteer to teach at the school? If so: a. Is there a system to determine who can be involved in teaching?

b. Are these parents/community members trained either formally or informally by head teachers or other school staff? Does someone monitor their performance in the

classroom? How so? c. What do you think about parents/community members teaching at your school?

(Probe: pros, cons)

19. Do parents or community members volunteer for anything else (apart from teaching) to support the school? What else do they volunteer for?

20. Do teachers at your school ever make home visits? (Probe: how often, purpose of visit) 21. Do teachers at this school often talk to parents? Do they talk about student progress? 22. Do you know whether the PTA is active at this school?

a. How does your role on the SMC differ from what the PTA does? 23. Do parents or community members actively participate in any activities at your school?

(Probe: drama, sports, music, contests, open day, speech day, construction work, school feeding program)

Conclusion

Ask participants if there is anything else they would like to share about their experience on the SMC and/or trainings they have received. Thank respondents for their time.



Head Teacher KII Participant Verbal Consent Form


from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the University of Ghana. We are conducting a study about UNICEF’s support to the education sector in Ghana, and your school













or






Thank you for your participation today. Today we are interested in learning about your experience working as a teacher. If you are ready, let’s begin.





2. Grade(s) and/or subject(s) taught (currently and in the past). 3. Length of time teaching; length of time as head teacher at this school.

4. How would you define ‘capacity development’? What does it mean to you? Now I’d like to talk about your perceptions, as teachers, of the planning process for capacity development activities:

Planning 5. Do you know the district education officials in [name of district]? If yes, what is your

relationship to them? How often do you see them? Are they readily available to you should you need to contact them for any reason? Please describe for the following positions:

a. Circuit Supervisor

b. District Director of Education c. District Training Officer

d. Girls’ Education Officer e. Planning/Statistics/Schedule/Budget Officers

6. Do you ever communicate with staff at the regional education office in [name of region]? If

yes, please describe. 7. Can you talk a bit about the visits district/regional officers make to your school?

a. Who conducts the school visits? Is it the same person each time? What do the officers do/check when visiting your school?

b. When district/regional officers visit, what is their primary reason for visiting? Is the

visit arranged primarily to: a. Follow up on a training? If yes, describe. Or

b. Conduct ad-hoc supervision and monitoring? If yes, describe. 8. How are you informed of capacity development activities (trainings, etc.)? 9. Are you invited to participate? Required to participate?

10. Are you aware of any resources provided for your school (or you as teachers) by the district office? What are these? Resources may refer to both materials (e.g. lesson planning

materials, ICT software) and support (e.g. supporting community engagement efforts, facilitating the process of school-fundraising)

11. Are there any individuals at your school/cluster who are involved in planning training

activities for teachers? Who are these individuals? How do they determine the training topics and plan for trainings?

12. As a head teacher, are you consulted about areas in which you need or would like additional training by your circuit supervisor, or by district officers? Are there any specific areas or topics you feel you could use additional training? What are these?

Girls Education 13. Do you think girls face any challenges in enrolling at your school? What about attending

school? Completing the year and getting promoted to the next grade? What are the main challenges?

14. Do you treat male and female students differently? (Probe: call on one gender more than the

other, give one gender harder assignments, etc.) 15. How many female teachers are there at your school? Do you think there are too many / not

enough?



16. What do you think you as a head teacher or the school could do to support girls better in pursuing their education?

17. Do you think further training is needed for you as a head teacher in the area of supporting girls’ education? What about the rest of the school staff?

Now I’d like to discuss let’s discuss the trainings you have received as a teacher:

Participation in Trainings 18. As head teachers, have you received any of the following trainings in the past two years?

(please ask the training topic one by one – if the respondent answers yes, please proceed with the questions #17 a-e about each training)

a. Child Friendly Schools b. Child-Centered and Gender-Responsive Pedagogy c. Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills

d. Leadership for Learning 19. What were your impressions of these trainings? (Content of training, delivery style, length,

etc.) a. Please describe the most important concepts you learned in the training. b. What were the positive aspects of the training? What about negative aspects? Please

describe. c. Was the training delivered by an education professional? If yes, was she or he

knowledgeable about the topic? Do you think she or he is an effective trainer? (Probe: engaging, attentive, patient, etc.)

d. Did they involve (check if yes): activities requiring your participation, such as

practical exercises, discussions, or games? Did the trainer check in with you periodically to ensure your understanding of the concepts? Did the trainer seek your

feedback periodically? Did the trainer place more emphasis on certain concepts? Did the trainer engage your interest throughout the training?

e. Were you asked for feedback on how the training could be improved in the future? If

yes: Can you tell me about some of the feedback that you provided? 20. How would you describe the quality of the support you received from the DTST during the

trainings?

Now I would like to ask you a few questions about follow-up to trainings:

Learning into Practice

21. Are you able to apply the practices you have learned in your trainings? a. If yes, how do you do this? Which training concepts are you using in particular?

b. If no, why are you not able to do this? 22. What (if any) follow-up support or assistance do you receive following trainings? 23. Are there specific materials that you need in order to apply the lessons from the trainings?

a. If yes: Can you tell me about these? Do you currently have access to these materials? 24. Do you still have the materials you received during the trainings? If no, why not?

a. If yes, do you use these materials? In what ways? How often?



25. Mentoring a. Do you currently have a mentor, or someone who supports your professional

development as a head teacher? b. If so, can you please tell me about this person? Who is it, and how did they become

your mentor? What support and guidance do you receive? Do you think your mentor helps your career growth?

c. If not, do you think that having a mentor would be helpful to your career growth?

Why or why not? d. Do you yourself mentor any other teachers? How did you come to do this?

26. Do you have any recommendations on ways to improve or facilitate the application of lessons from trainings in the classroom?

Now I want to ask about your experience with delivering trainings...

INSET 27. Please explain what your understanding of INSET is at the: district level; circuit level;

school-level; cluster level. 28. What kind of follow-up have you experienced regarding INSET that you participated in? 29. Do you organize school-based INSET? If yes: How frequently? What content do you conduct

INSET on? Training Delivery

30. Can you talk a bit about what your involvement is with training teachers? 31. What UNICEF-supported trainings have you conducted with teachers in the past two years?

These trainings include Child Friendly Schools and Child-Centered and Gender-Responsive

Pedagogy. a. (after head teacher lists the trainings, ask #32-36 about each training mentioned)

32. Were the objectives of the trainings clearly defined to you as a trainer? Were they realistic? 33. Did you feel well-prepared to conduct this training for teachers at your school? If yes: how

so? If not: why not?

34. Can you talk about how you conducted the training? As in, how did you work with participants to transfer knowledge (for example, did you use lecturing, practical exercises)?

Please be specific. 35. Do you believe the training content was sensitive to the constraints of schools? 36. Did you request feedback from training participants? If yes, at what points during the

trainings?

a. What did you do once you had this feedback?

37. Do you think that teachers are applying the learning from the trainings in the classroom? a. Why do you believe this? b. Do you follow up with teachers who attended the trainings you conducted?

c. What (if any) follow-up support or assistance did you provide training participants in order to transfer or apply their learning?

38. What are your thoughts on the cascade approach to teacher training, which is used frequently in Ghana?

a. Please tell me what you think the main strengths you see in the cascade approach?

Challenges? 39. Do you have any recommendations on ways teacher training in Ghana can be improved?



Sustainability & Accountability 40. Is your workload as a head teacher manageable? Do you have enough time to attend capacity

development activities/trainings outside the school? a. Roughly how much time per school term would you say you spend attending

trainings? Is this amount: less than what is needed? Appropriate? Or too much time spent on trainings?

41. Do you feel that the resources you need to complete your work effectively (specifically

pertaining to resources needed for capacity development) are available? 42. Do you feel that your circuit supervisor is committed to your capacity development and

growth as a head teacher? 43. How committed are you to the education profession? If you were offered a higher paying job

doing something else, would you take it?

44. Is teacher turnover an issue at your school? Please describe. a. If yes: what are some of the reasons teachers leave your school?

45. Do you receive any incentives (financial or non-monetary) to participate in trainings? Describe.

46. What role does the SMC play at your school?

a. Are they actively involved in school management? Community engagement? Please describe.

b. How do you believe the SMC could play a better role interacting with the school? 47. What do you believe is needed to improve leadership and management at the district office?

Conclusion:

48. Is there any additional support you believe would better equip you to fulfil your responsibilities as a head teacher? Please describe.

Thank respondents for their time and give them the opportunity to share anything else they would like to say about capacity development for teachers.



Student FGD Protocol Case Study

Verbal consent Hello, students. Thank you very much for being here today. We would like to ask you to

participate in a one-hour activity to help us better understand your experiences in your classroom with your fellow students and your teachers. Let’s begin by describing a little bit about the

activity to you.

What is a research study? Research studies help us learn new things. We can test new ideas. First, we ask a question. Then we try to find the answer. This paper talks about our research and the choice that you have to take

part in it. We want you to ask us any questions that you have. You can ask questions any time.

Important things to know…

You get to decide if you want to take part.

You can say ‘No’ or you can say ‘Yes’.

No one will be upset if you say ‘No’.

If you say ‘Yes’, you can always say ‘No’ later.

You can say ‘No’ at any time.

We would still take good care of you no matter what you decide.

Why are we doing this research? We are doing this research to find out more about what happens in your classroom, such as what

you learn, how you interact with your teachers and classmates, any discipline you face that may be upsetting to you. This information is very important in helping us understand your

experiences at school. If you need any immediate help with the situations you describe, we will do our best to help you.

What would happen if I join this research? First, anyone who would like to participate will be able to volunteer to act out different activities

you do at home in front of the group. Then, we will talk about your activities in school as a group and draw pictures that show an experience that you have had at school. Does anybody have any questions about the activities?

If you feel comfortable to share and discuss your feelings during the session you can do so, but if you do not you can say ‘No response’ and keep quiet. You do not have to participate and

choosing not to participate will not negatively affect you in any way. What you share with us will not be revealed to others. This is known as confidentiality. We will ask you about your experiences and we will note down your responses, without noting down your name on the

answer. So even if somebody reads what we have written, they cannot make out who said what. We will not reveal or share what you discuss during the session with anyone else. Everyone in

the group is also sworn to secrecy and you should also promise not to share what is discussed in the session with other children or adults who are not part of this session.



Finally, we would like to record the session. You may request that we stop recording at any point during the interview. The recording will be saved on a secure computer network, and no one

outside of our research team will have access to the recording. If you would like us to turn off the recorder at any point, you may say so. If anyone has any questions about this session, you can

ask us now. Those of you who have a question about this session, please raise your hand.




or

Hannah Ring, American Institutes for Research (Tel. +1 202-403-6715), 1000 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA

Thank you for your participation today. Today we are interested in learning about your experience as a student at this school. If you are ready, let’s begin.

Introduction

Name

Grade

Favorite subject in school Girls’ Education

Now, we’d like to tell you a couple of stories and then talk about them together.16

Positive Story: Teacher Adamba only has four reading books for his students to share.

Teacher Adamba made sure that both girls and boys were equally able to see the few books by dividing the students into small groups. This made the girls and boys all feel

happy because they were all able to read the lesson.

Script: How teachers interact with you in school can make you happy and excited to

learn. What are some other things that the teacher might do to make the students happy or excited to learn? Can anybody think of a story about a different situation that could make the students happy? Please raise your hand and share with the group.

Negative Story: Lamisi and her friends love playing football. One day after school there is a large group of children and teachers playing football. Lamisi and her friends ask if

they can play too, but are told by one of the teachers that football and other sports are for boys. Or

Lamisi really enjoys learning about math. She always raises her hand to answer questions during her class’s math lessons but her teacher never calls on her. The teacher only calls

on the boys in her class during the math and science lessons. When Lamisi tries to answer her teacher tells her that math and science are meant for boys.

16 UNICEF’s Participatory Assessment Tool Violence against children – Looking beyond experience informed the

development of the student participatory assessment guide for this evaluation.




Script: How teachers interact with you in school can also make you unhappy or

upset. Can anybody think of a different situation that might make a student feel unsafe or uncomfortable? Please raise your hand and share with the group.

Now that we’ve talked a little bit about the ways boys and girls might be treated differently, I

want you to think about your school, your teacher, and the boys and girls in your classroom.

Girls’ Education, cont.

1. How many female teachers are there at your school? Do you think there are too many / not enough?

2. Are there about the same number of boys and girls in your class, or are there more boys or

more girls? (specify) 3. Does your teacher call on boy students and girl students in your class the same amount? Or

does your teacher call on girls more than boys or boys more than girls? 4. Now think about the questions your teacher asks during class – does your teacher ask more

questions to boys or girls? Or is it about the same amount?

5. Think about where everybody usually sits in your class. Do girls tend to sit in the front or the back? Or are girls and boys mixed throughout the whole classroom?

Child-Friendly Schools 6. Would say that your school is clean, for the most part? (Probe: toilets, classroom, etc.) 7. Do you feel safe at school? What about walking to/from school?

8. Is there soap or ash available for you to wash your hands at school? Do you wash your hands after going to the toilet/latrine?

9. Is there drinking water available at school? (Probe: borehole, stand pipe, well, reservoir or filtered water)

10. Are there separate toilets for boys and girls at school?

11. Do you play and sports or other games at school? Is there any equipment available for sports or games at school? (Probe: soccer ball, net, etc.)

12. Do you know whether any money is required for you to attend school? (Probe: school fees, cost of uniform, etc.)

13. Do you have a textbook for each subject in school? Do you have your own textbook or do

you share? If you share, how many other students do you share with? 14. Do you have enough room at your desk to open a textbook and take notes during class?

15. Are there pictures or posters on the walls in your classroom? How many are there and what are they? (Probe: maps, student artwork, etc.)

16. If something is bothering you at school, or somebody is giving you a hard time (a classmate,

teacher, or older student), do you know who to talk to about this? 17. Do you know whether girls who are pregnant are allowed to keep coming to school? What

about after they have the baby, are girls allowed to return to school then?

18. Have you ever learned about HIV/AIDS at school? Can you tell me a little bit about what you learned?



Community Engagement 19. Does your teacher ever visit you or other students at home? (Probe: how often, purpose of

visit) 20. Do you know if your parents ever talk to your teacher?

21. Do you know whether parents serve on the PTA? 22. Do parents or community members actively participate in any activities at your school?

(Probe: drama, sports, music, contests, open day, speech day, construction work, school

feeding program) 23. Do parents or community members ever volunteer to teach at your school? If yes, what do

you think about this? 24. Do your parents/older siblings help you with homework? 25. Does anyone in your home encourage you to read outside of school?

Conclusion: OK, we are just about finished. I just have one more short activity for us. Please raise your hand if:

- You had fun during the session? - You felt uncomfortable during the session?

- You learned something?

- You felt happy? - There is something you want to tell us.

Closing: Please raise your hand if you have any questions you would like to ask. Otherwise, thank you for participating in the session. Let’s all clap for each other for a job well done.



Teacher FGD Participant Verbal Consent Form


from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the University of Ghana. We are conducting a study about UNICEF’s support to the education sector in Ghana, and your school













or






Thank you for your participation today. Today we are interested in learning about your experience working as teachers. If you are ready, let’s begin.





2. Grade(s) and/or subject(s) taught 3. Length of time teaching; length of time teaching at this school

4. How would you define ‘capacity development’? What does it mean to you? Now I’d like to talk about your perceptions, as teachers, of the planning process for capacity development activities:

Planning 5. Do you know the district education officials in [name of district]? If yes, what is your

relationship to them? How often do you see them? Are they readily available to you should you need to contact them for any reason?

a. Circuit Supervisor

b. District Director of Education c. District Training Officer

d. Girls’ Education Officer e. Planning/Statistics/Schedule/Budget Officers

6. Can you talk a bit about the visits district/regional officers make to your school?

a. Who conducts the school visits? Is it the same person each time? What do the officers do/check when visiting your school?

b. When district/regional officers visit, what is their primary reason for visiting? Is the visit arranged primarily to:

i. Follow up on a training? If yes, describe. Or

ii. Conduct ad-hoc supervision and monitoring? If yes, describe. 7. How are you informed of capacity development activities (trainings, etc.)?

8. Are you invited to participate? Required to participate? 9. Are you aware of any resources provided for your school (or you as teachers) by the district

office? UNICEF? Any other organizations? What are these? Resources may refer to both

materials (e.g. lesson planning materials, ICT software) and support (e.g. facilitating the process of school-fundraising, supporting community engagement efforts)

10. Are there any individuals at your school/cluster who are involved in planning training activities for teachers? Who are these individuals? How do they determine the training topics and plan for trainings?

a. As teachers, are you consulted about areas in which you need or would like additional training? Are there any specific areas or topics you feel you could use additional training?

What are these?

Now I’d like to discuss let’s discuss the trainings you have received as teachers:

INSET

11. Please explain what your understanding of INSET is at the: district level; circuit level; school-level; cluster level.

12. Does your head teacher organize school-based INSET? If yes: How frequently? What content do you participate in INSET on?

13. What kind of follow-up have you experienced regarding INSET that you participated in?

Participation in Trainings 14. As teachers, have you received any of the following trainings in the past two years?

a. Gender-responsive pedagogy training



b. Child-centered pedagogy training 15. What were your impressions of these trainings? (Content of training, delivery style, length,

etc.) a. Please describe the most important concepts you learned in the training.

b. What were the positive aspects of the training? What about challenges? Please describe. c. Was the training delivered by a head teacher? If yes, was she or he knowledgeable about

the topic? Do you think she or he is an effective trainer? (Probe: engaging, attentive,

patient, etc.) d. If no, was the training delivered by an education professional? Was he or she

knowledgeable about the training topic? e. Did they involve (check if yes): activities requiring your participation, such as practical

exercises, discussions, or games? Did the trainer check in with you periodically to ensure

your understanding of the concepts? Did the trainer seek your feedback periodically? Did the trainer place more emphasis on certain concepts? Did the trainer engage your interest

throughout the training? f. Were you asked for feedback on how the training could be improved in the future?

i. If yes: Can you tell me about some of the feedback that you provided?

16. How would you describe the quality of the support you received from the head teacher during the trainings?

Girls Education 17. Do you think girls face any challenges in enrolling at your school? What about attending

school? Completing the year and getting promoted to the next grade? What are the main

challenges? 18. Do you treat male and female students differently? (Probe: call on one gender more than the

other, give one gender harder assignments, etc.) 19. How many female teachers are there at your school? Do you think there are too many / not

enough?

20. What do you think you as a teacher or the school could do to support girls better in pursuing their education?

21. Do you think further training is needed for you as teachers in the area of supporting girls’ education? What about the head teacher?

Now I would like to ask you a few questions about follow-up to trainings:

Learning into Practice 22. Are you able to apply the practices you have learned in your trainings?

a. If yes, how do you do this? Which training concepts are you using in particular? b. If no, why are you not able to do this?

23. What (if any) follow-up support or assistance do you receive following trainings?

24. Are there specific materials that you need in order to apply the lessons from the trainings? a. If yes: Can you tell me about these? Do you currently have access to these materials?

25. Do you still have the materials you received during the trainings? If no, why not? b. If yes, do you use these materials? In what ways? How often?

26. Do you currently have a mentor, or someone who supports your professional development as

a teacher?



a. If so, can you please tell me about this person? Who is it, and how did they become your mentor? What support and guidance do you receive? Do you think your mentor helps

your career growth? b. If not, do you think that having a mentor would be helpful to your career growth? Why or

why not? 27. Do you yourself mentor any other teachers? How did you come to do this? 28. Do you have any recommendations on ways to improve or facilitate the application of

lessons from trainings in the classroom? Sustainability & Accountability

29. Is your workload as a teacher manageable? Do you have enough time to attend capacity development activities/trainings outside the classroom?

30. Do you feel that the resources you need to teach effectively are available?

31. Do you feel that your head teacher is committed to your capacity development and growth as a teacher?

32. How committed are you to the teaching profession? If you were offered a higher paying job doing something else, would you take it?

33. Is teacher turnover an issue at your school? Please describe.

a. If yes: what are some of the reasons teachers leave your school? 34. Do you receive any incentives (financial or non-monetary) to participate in trainings?

Describe. 35. What role does the SMC play at your school?

a. Are they actively involved in school management? Community engagement? Please

describe. b. How is the SMC different from the PTA?

c. How do you believe the SMC could better support your school?

Conclusion: 36. Is there any additional support you believe would better equip you to do fulfil your

responsibilities as teachers? Please describe.

Thank respondents for their time and give them the opportunity to share anything else they

would like to say about capacity development for teachers.



AIR/University of Ghana CD Evaluation for UNICEF Classroom Observation Tool

Data collector name(s): ___________________________________________________ Date of observation:

School name:

If any circumstances affected your ability to complete this observation, please describe:

1. Grade(s) in class (check all that apply).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2. Time of observation

3. Subject observed. Mathematics Literacy/language arts Science

4. Number of girls enrolled in this particular class.

5. Number of boys enrolled in this particular class.

6. Number of girls present on the day of the observation.

7. Number of boys present on the day of the observation.

8. Of the 50% of students seated closest to the blackboard or whiteboard in the class, how many are girls?

9. Of the 50% of students seated closest to the blackboard or whiteboard in the class, how many are boys?

10. How many girls have a notebook?



11. How many boys have a notebook?

12. How many girls have a pen or pencil?

13. How many boys have a pen or pencil?

14. How many girls have adequate space to do their work?

15. How many boys have adequate space to do their work?

16. How many girls are using furniture that is the correct size for them to work comfortably?

17. How many boys are using furniture that is the correct size for them to work comfortably?

18. How many girls are sitting in an area that has enough light to read a written page?

19. How many boys are sitting in an area that has enough light to read a written page?

20. How many girls are seated where they can see the blackboard or whiteboard?

21. How many boys are seated where they can see the blackboard or whiteboard?

22. How many girls are using pieces of classroom furniture that are unsafe?

23. How many boys are using pieces of classroom furniture that are unsafe?

Not at

All True

A Little

Bit True

Mostly

True

Very

True

24. Students in the class are protected from noise.

25. The teacher asks girls questions that require higher-order thinking.

26. The teacher asks boys questions that require higher-order thinking.



Not at

All True

A Little

Bit True

Mostly

True

Very

True

27. During the time that the students are working, the teacher moves around the classroom to

provide girls academic support and guidance.

28. During the time that the students are working, the teacher moves around the classroom to provide boys academic support and guidance.

29. Teacher feedback about girls’ work is accompanied by positive comments about achievements and suggestions for improvement.

30. Teacher feedback about boys’ work is accompanied by positive comments about achievements and suggestions for improvement.

31. Girls pay attention in class.

32. Boys pay attention in class.

33. The teacher redirects girls who are not paying attention in class.

34. The teacher redirects boys who are not paying attention in class.

35. The teacher uses positive methods to manage girls’ behaviour.

36. The teacher uses positive methods to manage boys’ behaviour.

37. The teacher gives girls time to fully respond to questions.

38. The teacher gives boys time to fully respond to questions.

39. The girls ask the teacher questions.

40. The boys ask the teacher questions.

41. Girls participate in class activities.

42. Boys participate in class activities.

43. The teacher presents the lesson in a well prepared and organized manner.



44. Teaching materials available in classroom (list all, including posters/maps/etc. on the walls):

45. Teaching materials used by teacher (list only those used by teacher during observation):

44. Student learning materials available in classroom (list all):

45. Student learning materials used by students (list only those used by students during observation, including the # available per student):

Other notable observations:



Participant Verbal Consent Form


from the University of Ghana and the American Institutes for Research (AIR). We are conducting a study about UNICEF’s support to the education sector in Ghana, and your district

was chosen because of the trainings you have received in the past two years. The purpose of this discussion is to obtain more in-depth information about your experience with capacity development trainings. We hope that this information will eventually benefit future trainings by

allowing us to understand what is working well with both the trainings and systems in place and what can be improved in order to better support the education sector in Ghana. Information you

share will help UNICEF identify better approaches to support education improvements in Ghana.

Your name will be kept private and separate from the evaluation. Only the researchers on the evaluation team will have access to your name and the details of your results, and this will only

be used for follow-up and directly related research purposes. All information that is collected in this study will be treated confidentially. While aggregated results will be made available, no

individuals will be identified in any report of the results of the study. Your participation in the evaluation will not hinder your access to any service you are currently receiving or may receive from UNICEF or the GES. Everything you say will be kept confidential.

If you have questions about the interview, please contact either:

Dr. Clement Adamba (Tel. 0244973913), School of Education and Leadership, P. O Box LG

1181, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra

or



If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant in this study you may

contact the Administrator of the Ethics Committee for Humanities, ISSER, University of Ghana at: [email protected]/[email protected] or 00233- 303-933-866.

Is there any part of this explanation that you do not understand? Will you please give me some

time to speak with you? Please feel free to ask if you have any questions at any time, even before I start.

Thank you for your participation today.





1. How long have you been working at this office? a. 0-1 year

b. 2-4 years c. 5-7 years

d. 8-10 years e. More than 10 years

2. Have you held any other positions at this district office? Circle one: Yes/No If yes, please list.

3. Please describe how you understand ‘capacity development’ in 1-2 sentences. ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

4. How often (and in what way) do you communicate with the following: a. Headquarters ____ times per _____________.

Mode of communication: ___________________________________________________

b. Regional Office ____ times per _____________.

Mode of communication: ___________________________________________________

c. Circuit supervisors ____ times per _____________. Mode of communication: ___________________________________________________

d. Head teachers ____ times per _____________. Mode of communication:

___________________________________________________ e. Teachers ____ times per _____________.

Mode of communication:

___________________________________________________

5. School visits: a. Purpose: __________________________________________________________ b. Frequency of school visits: _____ times per __________.

c. What is monitored: ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ d. Who conducts school visits: __________________________________

i. Is it the same person each time? Circle one: Yes/No



e. Who do you meet with when visiting schools? Circle all that apply: i. Teachers

ii. Administrators iii. Students

iv. Other: ________________________________________

6. What resources does your office provide for teachers and school administrators? Circle all

that apply: a. Lesson planning materials

b. ICT software c. Support for community engagement d. TLMs

e. Other: ______________________________________________

7. What are the top 3 challenges affecting girls’ access to and enrollment in school at the primary level? Please circle according to which challenges the respondent mentions:

Lack of parental support

Distance to school Lack of separate/acceptable bathroom facilities

Pregnancy Forced marriage Lack of uniforms

Community doesn’t value importance of girls’ education Learning difficulties

Illiteracy Girls needed by families for market days Seasonal farm work

Household chores Other (please write):

8. Do you think there are enough female teachers in your district? Circle one: Yes/No

9. Have you participated in any of the following trainings? If yes, answer sub-questions i.-

vii. below the name of the training. If no, skip to following training.

a. Gender-responsive pedagogy training Circle one: Yes/No

i. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned. ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

ii. Two to three positive aspects of the training:

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________



iii. Two to three negative aspects of the training: ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

iv. Was the training delivered by an education professional? Circle one: Yes/No

v. Was the trainer knowledgeable about the topic? Circle one: Yes/No

vi. Did the training involve this? Circle yes or no for each: 1) Activities requiring participation Yes/No 2) Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts Yes/No

3) Trainer sought feedback Yes/No 4) Trainer emphasized certain concepts Yes/No

5) Trainer was engaging Yes/No

vii. Suggestions to improve this training:

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

b. Gender-based activities training Circle one: Yes/No

i. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned.

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________


___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

iii. Two to three negative aspects of the training:

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________



vi. Did the training involve this? Circle yes or no for each:

1) Activities requiring participation Yes/No 2) Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts Yes/No





vii. Suggestions to improve this training: ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

c. Child Friendly Schools Circle one: Yes/No

i. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

ii. Two to three positive aspects of the training: ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

iii. Two to three negative aspects of the training: ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________




1) Activities requiring participation Yes/No 2) Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts Yes/No 3) Trainer sought feedback Yes/No

4) Trainer emphasized certain concepts Yes/No 5) Trainer was engaging Yes/No


___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

d. Orientation on equity issues in education Circle one: Yes/No

i. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned. ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________




___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________


___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________




1) Activities requiring participation Yes/No

2) Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts Yes/No 3) Trainer sought feedback Yes/No

4) Trainer emphasized certain concepts Yes/No 5) Trainer was engaging Yes/No

vii. Suggestions to improve this training: ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

e. Leadership for Learning Circle one: Yes/No

i. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ii. Two to three positive aspects of the training:

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________


___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________






1) Activities requiring participation Yes/No 2) Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts Yes/No

3) Trainer sought feedback Yes/No 4) Trainer emphasized certain concepts Yes/No 5) Trainer was engaging Yes/No


___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

f. Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills Circle one: Yes/No

i. Describe the two or three most important concepts you learned.

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________


___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________


___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________



vi. Did the training involve this? Circle yes or no for each: 1) Activities requiring participation Yes/No 2) Trainer checked in to ensure understanding of concepts Yes/No




___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________



10. Did any of those who trained you conduct follow up visits? Circle one: Yes/No

11. Do you require specific materials to apply lessons from the trainings? Circle one: Yes/No a. If yes, do you currently have those materials? Circle one: Yes/No

12. Do you still have the materials you received during the trainings? Circle one: Yes/No

13. Are you able to apply the practices you have learned in your trainings in your daily tasks? Circle one: Yes/No

a. Please list the 3 most significant ways that these trainings have changed how you

perform your daily tasks?

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

14. ADEOP Design Process

a. Who is involved in this? Circle all that apply:

i. Teachers ii. School-level administrators iii. District- level administrators

iv. County-level administrators v. Ministry of Education employees vi. Other (list all):

____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

b. Planning usually takes: Circle one i. 2 weeks – 1 month

ii. 1-3 months

iii. 4-6 months iv. 7 months – 1 year

c. Has this process changed in the past two years? Circle one: Yes/No

15. ADEOP Application

a. Who uses ADEOPs? Circle all that apply: i. Teachers

ii. School-level administrators iii. District- level administrators iv. Regional- level administrators

v. Ministry of Education employees vi. Other (list all):

____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

b. List the 3 primary ways ADEOPs are used in the district office:

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________



16. What trainings have head teachers and teachers received in the past two years? Circle all that

apply: a. Gender-responsive pedagogy training

b. Gender-based activities training c. Child Friendly Schools d. Orientation on equity issues in education

e. Leadership for Learning f. Supportive Supervision and Leadership Skills

g. Other (list all): ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

Please ask questions #17-22 ONLY if the person you are speaking to delivered any of the

above trainings to head teachers or teachers:

17. Training participants a. The appropriate participants were included in this training. Circle one: Yes/No b. Having head teachers attend the bulk of teacher trainings is

i. Very effective ii. Somewhat effective

iii. Neutral iv. Somewhat ineffective v. Very ineffective

18. What techniques were used to transfer knowledge to participants? Circle all that apply:

a. Lecturing b. Practical exercises c. Group simulations

d. Quizzes e. Other (list all):

____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

19. Do you believe the training content was sensitive to the constraints of the school? Circle one: Yes/No

20. How often do you follow up with head teachers and teachers who attended trainings?

a. Very often

b. Sometimes c. Rarely

d. Never

21. When you delivered the trainings, please tell me what worked well.

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________



___________________________________________________________________________

22. What did not work so well in the trainings that can be improved upon in future trainings you deliver?

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

23. Who are you accountable to at this office? ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

24. How is your performance measured? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________



UNICEF-GHANA PROGRAMME EVALUATION

AIR/University of Ghana CD Evaluation Survey

SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE

IDENTIFICATION

Name of School

School EMIS Code

Locality

Urban = 1: Rural:= 2

Type of School: Shift Schedule System [1] Single shift Schedule System [2]

School Level Primary Only [1] KG and Primary [2]

Primary and JHS [3] KG, Primary, and JHS [4]

School has the School Feeding Programme

Yes [1] No [2]

Does your school has GPEG

Yes [1]

No [2]

Locality type: Large Town = 1 Small town = 2 Village = 3

Region Name:__________________________: Code:

District Name:__________________________: Code:

Sub Metro Name:__________________________: Code:



Name of Circuit

Name of Headteacher/Respondent

Phone Number

Questionnaire No.

Date questionnaire was administered

INTERVIEWER FIELD EDITOR

NAME NAME

ID ID

DATE

DATE



List A: Regions

01= Western 03= Greater Accra 05= Eastern 07= Brong Ahafo 09= Upper East

02= Central 04= Volta 06= Ashanti 08= Northern 10= Upper West

List B: Districts

Western Region Central Region Greater Accra Region

001= Ahanta West

002= Aowin Suaman

003= Bia

004= Bibiani/Anhwiaso/Bekwai

005= Ellembele

006= Jomoro

007= Juabeso

008= Mpohor Wassa East

009= Nzema East

010= Prestea-Huni Valley

011= Sefwi Akontobra

012= Sefwi Wiawso

013= Sekondi Takoradi

014= Shama

015= Tarkwa Nsuaem

016= Wassa Amenfi East

017= Wassa Amenfi West

018= Abura-Asebu-Kwamankese

019= Agona East

020= Agona West

021= Ajumako/Enyan/Esiam

022= Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa

023= Assin North

024= Assin South

025= Awutu Senya

026= Cape Coast

027= Effutu

028= Gomoa East

029= Gomoa West

030= Komenda-Edina-Eguafo Abirem

031= Mfantsiman

032= Twifo/Heman/Lower Denkyira

033= Upper Denkyira West

034= Upper Denkyira East

035= Accra

036= Adenta

037= Ashaiman

038= Dangbe East

039= Dangbe West

040= Ga East

041= Ga West

042= Ledzekuku-Krowor

043= Tema

044= Weija



Volta Region Eastern Region Ashanti Region

045= Adaklu-Anyigbe

046= Akatsi

047= Biakoye

048= Ho

049= Hohoe

050= Jasikan

051= Kadjebi

052= Keta

053= Ketu North

054= Ketu South

055= Kpando

056= Krachi East

057= Krachi West

058= Nkwanta North

059= Nkwanta South

060= North Tongu

061= South Tongu

062= South Dayi

063= Akwapim North

064= Akwapim South

065= Akyemansa

066= Asuogyaman

067= Atiwa

068= Birim Central

069= Birim North

070= Birim South

071= East Akim

072= Fanteakwa

073= Kwabibirem

074= Kwahu East

075= Kwahu North (Afram Plains)

076= Kwahu South

077= Kwahu West

078= Lower Manya Krobo

079= New Juaben

080= Suhum/Kraboa/Coaltar

081= Upper Manya Krobo

082= West Akim

083= Yilo Krobo

084= Adansi North

085= Adansi South

086= Afigya Kwabre

087= Ahafo Ano North

088= Ahafo Ano South

089= Amansie Central

090= Amansie East

091= Amansie West

092= Asante Akim North

093= Asante Akim South

094= Atwima Mponua

095= Atwima Nwabiagya

096= Atwima-Kwanwoma

097= Bekwai

098= Bosome Freho

099= Bosomtwe

100= Ejisu-Juabeng

101= Ejura Sekyedumase

102= Kumasi

103= Kwabre

104= Mampong

105= Obuasi

106= Offinso

107= Offinso North

108= Sekyere Afram Plain

109= Sekyere Central

110= Sekyere East

111= Sekyere South



Brong Ahafo Region Northern Region Upper East Region

112= Asunafo North

113= Asunafo South

114= Asutifi

115= Atebubu Amantin

116= Berekum

117= Dormaa

118= Dormaa East

119= Jaman North

120= Jaman South

121= Kintampo North

122= Kintampo South

123= Nkoranza North

124= Nkoranza South

125= Pru

126= Sene

127= Sunyani

128= Sunyani West

129= Tain

130= Tano North

131= Tano South

132= Techiman

133= Wenchi

134= Bole

135= Bunkprugu-Yunyoo

136= Central Gonja

137= Chereponi

138= East Gonja

139= East Mamprusi

140= Gushiegu

141= Karaga

142= Kpandai

143= Nanumba North

144= Nanumba South

145= Saboba

146= Savelugu Nanton

147= Sawla-Tuna-Kalba

148= Tamale

149= Tolon-Kumbungu

150= West Gonja

151= West Mamprusi

152= Yendi

153= Zabzugu Tatale

154= Bawku

155= Bawku West

156= Bolgatanga

157= Bongo

158= Builsa

159= Garu-Tempane

160= Kassena Nankana

161= Kassena Nankana West

162= Talensi-Nabdam

Upper West Region

163= Jirapa 164= Lambussie Karni

165= Lawra 166= Nadowli

167= Sissala East 168= Sissala West 169= Wa

170= Wa East 171= Wa West



Content

Section ID Identification Codes

Section A General

Section B School Enrolment

Section C Teaching and Learning Materials

Section D School Facilities

Section E Staff Training

Section G Special Needs Children

Section H UNICEF Interventions/Trainings

Section J Perception on UNICEF Trainings

Section K Perceived Impact on UNICEF Trainings

Section L Sustainability and accountability

Section M Approaches to Training and Recommendations



Section A: General

I would like to ask questions regarding the teaching staff.

Mem

ber

ID

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10

First name Last name What is the

sex of

[name]?

1= M

2= F

How old is

[name]?

Years

Employment

status

[List A1]

What is

[name]

rank as a

teacher?

(List A2)

What is the

highest level

of schooling

[name] has

completed?

(List A3)

What is

[name's]

area of study

during the

last school

grade?

(List A4)

What class does

[name]

normally teach?

(List A5)

How long has

[name] been

working as a

teacher in this

school?

(Complete in

Years)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16



Section A: General

I would like to ask questions regarding the teaching staff

Mem

ber

ID

A1 A2 A11 A12 A13

First

name

Last name Has [name] been away

more than 2 weeks for

reasons other than illness?

1. Yes

2. No

Is [name] present in school

today?

1. Yes

2. No

Does [name] live in this community?

1. Yes

2. No

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16



Section A: General

Parental Involvement: I would like to ask Questions about how parents are involved with activities in your school?

A:15 A16

Are parents involved in school activities?

1. Yes

2. No>> QA16

How are parents involved in school activities?

[List A6]

Multiple responses allowed

List A1 List A2 A3 List A4 List A5 List A6

1. Full Time Professional

Teacher

2. Full Time Pupil Teacher

3. Part Time Teacher

4. Teaching Assistant

5. Other Specify

Director [1]

Assistant Director 1 [2]

Assistant Director 2 [3]

Deputy Director 1 [4]

Deputy Director 2 [5]

Principal Superintendent [6]

Senior Superintendent 1 [7]

Senior Superintendent 2 [8]

Teacher [9]

Other specify [10]

01= Basic School

02= Secondary/Vocation

03= Teacher Training

Colleges/Colleges of

Education

04=Polytechnic/Technical

Education

05= University

06 = Other Specify

1. English

2. Maths

3. Science

4. Social Studies

5. Language

6. ICT

7. PE

8. General

9. Other Specify

00=Head teacher

01= Pre-school

11= P1

12= P2

13= P3

14= P4

15= P5

16= P6

17= JSS1

18= JSS2

19= JSS3

1. PTA

2. SMC

3. Open Days

4. Other Specify



Section A: Other General Questions

AO1. Are you generally satisfied with your profession as a teacher? 1. Yes 2. No

AO2. Are you more content now than when you began teaching as a teacher? 1. Yes 2. No

AO3. Do you plan to teach for as long as you can? 1. Yes 2. No

AO4. Are teachers satisfied with their job descriptions in this school? 1. Yes 2. No

AO5. How are teachers assessed in your school?

1. Observation by Head teacher

2. Observation by District Officers

3. Observation by Circuit Officers Teacher Peer review

4. Students Achievement

5. Other Specify

(Multiple responses expected)

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]



Section B: School Enrolment

This section is about enrolment in the School

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7

What is the total

enrolment of

students in your

school last school

year -2015/2016?

What is the total

number of female

students enrolled in

your school last

school year-

2015/2016?

What is the

current

enrolment of

students in your

school-

2016/2017?

What is the current

enrolment of female

students in your

school

2016/2017?

What is the total

number of

classrooms in

your school?

What is the total number

of classrooms with

black/white boards in

your school?

What is the

average class

attendance?

KG1

KG2

PRIMARY 1

PRIMARY 2

PRIMARY 3

PRIMARY 4

PRIMARY 5

PRIMARY 6



SECTION C: Teaching and Learning Material

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10

C11

Wh

at

teach

ing

an

d learn

ing

Mate

rials

are

av

ail

ab

le in

yo

ur

sch

oo

l?

1. Y

es

2. N

o>

> n

ex

t T

LM

Do

stu

den

ts h

av

e th

ese

reso

urc

es

in y

ou

r sc

ho

ol?

1. Y

es

2. N

o

Are

th

ese

reso

urc

es

ad

eq

uate

in

yo

ur

sch

oo

l acco

rdin

g to

th

e

pre

scri

bed

rati

o?

1. Y

es

2. N

o

Wh

o p

rov

ides

the m

ain

/majo

r

Teach

ing

an

d L

earn

ing

mate

rials

?

[Lis

t C

1]

Do

th

e a

vail

ab

le T

LM

s ass

ist

yo

u in

teach

ing

th

e p

resc

rib

ed

cu

rric

ulu

m?

1. Y

es

2. N

o

Do

teach

ers

hav

e a

deq

uate

wo

rksp

ace f

or

teach

ing

an

d

Learn

ing

?

1. Y

es

2. N

o

Do

yo

u u

se c

om

pu

ters

in

pre

pari

ng

yo

ur

less

on

no

tes?

1. Y

es

2. N

o

Do

yo

u u

se c

om

pu

ters

in

yo

ur

ad

min

istr

ati

ve d

uti

es

in y

ou

r

sch

oo

l?

1. Y

es

2. N

o

Do

yo

u u

se c

om

pu

ters

fo

r

cla

ssro

om

in

stru

cti

on

?

1. Y

es

2. N

o

Ho

w m

an

y c

om

pu

ters

do

es

the

sch

oo

l h

av

e f

or

teach

ing

an

d

learn

ing

?

Wh

ich

gra

de l

ev

el(

s) h

av

e

access

to

use

th

e c

om

pu

ters

in

yo

ur

sch

oo

l?

Textbooks

Workbook

Note books List C1

1. Government/

GES

2. The School

3. The Parents

4. The Community

5. UNICEF

6. USAID

7. CAMFED

8. Right to Play

9. Other Specify

Pens/ Pencils

Chalk/ Marker

Black/white

boards

Concrete

Objects

Dictionary

Posters

Science

Equipment

Maths

equipment

Materials for

Pre-vocational

studies

Computers/

tablets

Other Specify



Section D: School Facilities

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

What is the main source

of water for the school?

(List D1)

What is the distance from

the school to the main

water source?

(List D2)

Is this water source

available all year round?

1. Yes

2. No

What is the type of

sanitary facility available

in your school?

(List D3)

If None Skip to D6

Are there separate sanitary

facilities for boys and

girls?

1. Yes 2. No

What types of hand

washing facility are

available in your school?

(List D4)

List D1 List D2 List D3 List D4

1. Bore-holes

2. Hand dug well

3. Stream

4. Rain water 5. Pipe borne water 6. River

7. Other

1. In the school

2. Less than 1 km from school

3. 1 km from school

4. More than 1 km from school

1. None

2. KVIP

3. Pit Latrine

4.Bucket Latrine

5.Water Closet

6.Other Specify

1= Hand-washing basin with soap

2 = Hand-washing basin without soap

3 = Running tap with soap

4 = Running tap without soap

5 = Veronica buckets with soap

6 = Veronica buckets without soap

7 = Polytanks

8= None

9 = Other Specify



Section E: Staff Training: This section is about all forms of training the staff have received in the last 12 months

Have you received any form of in-service training in the Last 12 months? 1. Yes 2. No if No skip>> to Section G

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13

Types of

Training?

Please List

Who

requests

for the

training?

(List E1)

Who

determines

the need

for the

training?

(List E1)

How

frequent

is the

training in

a term?

(List E2)

Who

sponsored

this

training?

(List E3)

Who did the

in-service

training?

(List E1)

At what level

was the

training

conducted?

(List E4)

What is the

date of the

recent in-

service

training?

Is the training

relevant to

your

classroom

management?

1. Yes

2. No

Is the trainings

appropriate given

education sector

needs and

available

resources?

1. Yes

2. No

Is the

Training

relevant to

your needs

as a

teacher?

1. Yes

>>E13

2. No

If the

training is

not relevant

what do

you usually

do?

[List E7]

Do you use

the training

acquired in

your daily

classroom

activities?

1. Yes

2. No

LIST E1 List E2 List E3 List E4 List E5 List E6 List E7 List E8

1. Teachers

2. Head teacher

3. Circuit

Supervisor

4. DTST

5. District Director/Officers

6. Other Specify

1. Once a term

2. Two times a

term

3. Three times a term

4. Other

1. GES

2. UNICEF

3. CAMFED

4. USAID 5. Other (Specify)

1. School Level

2. Circuit Level

3. District office 4.Other (specify)

1. Children join classes

2. Training coincides with break time

3. School closes for

training

4. Children are left unattended

5. Class prefect leads

children with reading

activities

6.Other (specify)

[Multiple responses allowed]

1. English

2. Maths

3. Science

4.Life skills

5. Local language

6. Other Specify

1. Indifferent

2. Make it

applicable in my

teaching and learning

3. Share with other

colleagues who

need the training content

4. Other List

1. Required

2. Selected

3. Open Invitation

4. Other specify



Section E: Staff Training: This section is about all forms of training the staff have received in the last 12 months

Have you received any form of in-service training in the Last 12 months? 1. Yes 2. No if No skip>> Section G

E14 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E20 E21 E22 E23

Have you

received

any other

form of

training in

the last

twelve

months?

1. Yes 2. No

When trainings are

conducted during

school hours, what

happens to instruction time?

(List E5 Multiple

responses allowed)

On average

how many

days of

training did

this

training take?

How many

times did

you have this

raining in a year?

How was

your school

selected for this trainings?

[List E8]

Are you

aware of

the Child

friendly

school

checklist?

1. Yes

2. No>>

E22

Do you

use this

check list

in your

school?

1. Yes 2. No

Have you

experienced any

changes in your

school since the

introduction of

the CFS checklist?

1. Yes 2. No

Do you know if

the district office

uses the CFS

checklist results?

1. Yes

2. No

Do teachers have

too many training

programmes?

1. Yes 2. No



Section G: Inclusive Education

This section is about Inclusive Education: Do you have children with special needs in this school?

1. Yes 2. No

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5

What kind of Children with

special needs do you have in your school?

1. Yes

2. No >>

Have you or anybody in your

school received training to

manage children with special needs?

1. Yes

2. No>>

What training did you receive

on training children with special needs)

Were these training adequate to

help you manage the classroom better?

1. Yes

2. No

Children with Special Needs

(eg. Nomadic, hawkers, HIV?AIDS, street children etc)

Children with Special Learning

needs (eg. children with

learning difficulties such as

dyslexia dyscalculia,

dysgraphia…)

Children with Disability (eg.

ADHD - Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder,

physical impairment, epilepsy, etc)

Children with Special education

needs(eg. speech and language difficulties, deaf, blindness etc)

Other Specify



Section H: UNICEF Interventions/Trainings - This section is about UNICEF Interventions and Trainings that staff have received in the last 12 months

Respondents of this section must be beneficiaries of the Gender Based Trainings

H1 H1b H1c H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14

W

hic

h o

f th

e fo

llo

win

g U

NIC

EF

p

rog

ram

mes

hav

e y

ou

ben

efit

ted

fro

m?

1

. Yes

2. N

o>

>

Wh

o a

tten

ded

th

is tra

inin

g?(

Pre

-

load

lis

t o

f te

ach

ers

from

QA

1)

To

tal at

ten

dee

s fr

om

th

is s

cho

ol?

Wh

en w

as th

is tra

inin

g

org

aniz

ed?

Wer

e th

e o

bje

ctiv

e cl

earl

y s

tate

d

to y

ou

?

1. Y

es

2

. No

Wer

e th

e o

bje

ctiv

es o

f th

e

trai

nin

g m

et?

1. Y

es

2

. No

Hav

e y

ou

rec

eived

an

y f

oll

ow

up

vis

its

fro

m th

ose

wh

o tra

ined

yo

u?

1. Y

es

2

. No

Ho

w r

elev

ant w

as th

is tra

inin

g to

yo

ur

role

? [L

ist F

3]

Has

th

is tra

inin

g im

pac

ted o

n

yo

ur

teac

hin

g a

nd lea

rnin

g n

ow

?

1. Y

es

2

. No

Are

yo

u a

ble

to

ap

ply

th

e sk

ills

acq

uir

ed in

th

ese

trai

nin

gs

to d

aily

ta

sks?

1. Y

es

2

. No

Are

th

ere

spec

ific

mat

eria

ls th

at

yo

u r

equ

ire

to b

e ab

le to

ap

ply

the

less

on

s fr

om

th

e tr

ainin

g?

1. y

es 2

. No

>>

11

Do

yo

u h

ave

the

mat

eria

ls?

1. Y

es

2

. No

Wh

o o

rgan

ized

th

e tr

ainin

g?

(L

ist E

1)

Did

th

is tra

inin

g r

equ

ire

furt

her

trai

nin

g?

1. Y

es 2

. No

Wer

e th

e tr

ain

ers

able

to

im

par

t th

e re

qu

ired

kn

ow

led

ge

to y

ou

1. Y

es

2

. No

Was

th

e co

nte

nts

of th

e tr

ainin

g

app

rop

riat

e to

your

nee

ds

1. Y

es

2. N

o

GENDER BASED TRAININGS

Gender-responsive pedagogy training

Gender-based activities training


Orientation on equity issues in education

Equity and fairness issues in schools

Child-centered gender-based

activities/play-based activities (Literacy/ Numeracy)




Section H: UNICEF Interventions/Trainings - This section is about UNICEF Interventions and Trainings that staff have received in the last 12 months

Who is responding? (More than one person can respond, but must always agree. Respondents of this section must be beneficiaries of the Capacity Development Training)

H1 H1b H1c H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14

W

hic

h o

f th

e fo

llow

ing U

NIC

EF

pro

gra

mm

es h

ave

you b

enef

itte

d f

rom

?

1. Y

es

2. N

o>

>

Who a

tten

ded

this

tra

inin

g?

(Pre

-load

lis

t

of

teac

her

s fr

om

QA

1)

Tota

l at

tendee

s fr

om

this

sch

ool?

When

was

this

tra

inin

g o

rgan

ized

?

Wer

e th

e obje

ctiv

e cl

earl

y s

tate

d t

o y

ou?

1. Y

es

2. N

o

Wer

e th

e obje

ctiv

es o

f th

e tr

ainin

g m

et?

1. Y

es

2. N

o

Hav

e you r

ecei

ved

any f

ollow

up v

isits

from

those

who tr

ained

you?

1. Y

es

2. N

o

How

rel

evan

t w

as t

his

tra

inin

g t

o y

our

role

? [L

ist

F3]

Has

this

tra

inin

g i

mpac

ted o

n y

our

teac

hin

g a

nd lea

rnin

g n

ow

?

1. Y

es

2. N

o

Are

you a

ble

to a

pply

the

skills

acq

uir

ed

in thes

e tr

ainin

gs

to d

aily

tas

ks?

1. Y

es

2

. N

o

Are

ther

e sp

ecif

ic m

ater

ials

that

you

requir

e to

be

able

to a

pply

the

less

ons

from

the

trai

nin

g?

1. yes

2. N

o

>>

11

D

o y

ou h

ave

the

mat

eria

ls?

1. Y

es

2. N

o

Who o

rgan

ized

the

trai

nin

g?

(Lis

t E

1)

Did

this

tra

inin

g r

equir

e fu

rther

tra

inin

g?

1. Y

es

2. N

o

Wer

e th

e tr

ainer

s ab

le t

o im

par

t th

e

requir

ed k

now

ledge

to y

ou

1. Y

es

2. N

o

Was

the

conte

nts

of

the

trai

nin

g

appro

pri

ate

to y

our

nee

ds

1. Y

es

2. N

o

Training GES Staff

(DDEs/Frontiline Managers) on LfC/ Pre-tertiary

Professional Development/ Management

Training for District Support Training

Teams on LfL, Early Grade Reading (P1-P3),

Child-centred gender-based activities/play-

based activities (Literacy/ Numeracy)

Training on on

mSRC Application (strengthen access and utilisation of

real time data)



Training Workshop for Primary Prefects in Leadership Skills

Training for Headteachers/

Circuit Supervisors/DEOCs on Supportive

supervision and leadership skills

Training on Child Friendly Schools

(CFS)

Development of leadership for learning and

leadership for change manuals

Training of Headteachers and circuit supervisors

on leadership for learning

Training of GES management in

leadership for change

Training Headteachers and teacher on child

centred pedagogy

Training of Headteachers and teachers on school

based assessment

Training of teachers on Child centred and gender

responsive pedagogy



Please rank on a scale of 1-5 [List F1, F2, F3 and F4], with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest on how effective, efficient and Relevant UNICEF programme are.

EFFECTIVE – in relation to how the training was delivered.

EFFICIENT - Was the time and resources spent worth it?

RELEVANCE – Was the training Appropriate, Applicable, Practical, useful and Important

[List F1]

1. Not Very ineffective

2. Not Effective

3. Neutral

4. Effective

5. Very effective

[List F2]

1. Not Very efficient

2. Efficient

3. Neutral

4. Efficient

5. Very efficient

[List F3]

1. Not Very Relevant

2. Not Relevant

3. Neutral

4. Relevant

5. Very Relevant

[List F4]

1. Strongly Disagree

2. Disagree

3. Neutral

4. Agree

5. Strongly Agree



Section J: Perception on UNICEF Trainings

NO

I would now like to ask you some questions about your perception of the effectiveness, efficiency and relevan ce of the UNICEF training programmes

Please rank on a scale of 1-5 [List F1, F2, F3], with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest on how effective, efficient and Relevant UNICEF programme are.

EFFECTIVE - How the training was delivered. EFFICIENT - Was the time and resources spent worth it?

RELEVANCE—Was the Appropriate, Applicable, Practical, useful and Important

Type of training received

J1 J2 J3 J4

Yes/No

EFFECTIVE

[list F1]

EFFICIENT

[list F2]

RELEVANCE

[list F3]

Scale of 1–5 Scale of 1–5 Scale of 1–5

1 Pre tertiary professional development

2

Orientation on the new Pre-Tertiary Professional Development Policy and their role in its

implementation

3 Leadership training to strengthen management skills

4 Training on use of real time data

5 Leadership training to strengthen management skills

6 Training to equip prefects with leadership skills

7 Training on Gender Centered Play-based activities

8 Gender-responsive pedagogy training

9 Gender-based activities training

10 Child Friendly Schools

11 Training on numeracy and literacy

12

Training to strengthen Head teachers/DSTS/training officers skills to support INSET to know

what is expected of teachers

13 Training on methods to promote effective teaching and learning

14 Training to strengthen head teachers monitoring skills

15 Training on school based assessment

16 Training on effective implementation of schools educational goals in their learning

17 Training on keeping orderly atmosphere in the school

18 Leadership for learning and leadership for change manuals teaching

19 Training on Child Friendly Schools (CFS)

20 Advising and assisting teachers who have problems with their teaching



Section K: Perceived Impact of UNICEF trainings on intended outcomes or purposes.

I would like to make a statement about the impact of the trainings that you participated in . Can you tell me whether you agree or disagree with me? I would like you to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree. Using a scale of 1-5 where 1 mean strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree please rate the impact of the following on these outcomes

TYPE OF TRAINING PURPOSE OF TRAINING/PERFORMANCE OUTCOME

K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10

Did you

attend this training?

1. Y

es

2. No

Teachers are

equipped

with

knowledge

and skills on

[type of

training]

Trainees

have

acquired

leadership skills

Trainees

have

acquired

skills in the

supervision of learning

Trainees

Management

skills and their

role in

promoting

learning have

been strengthened

Head

teachers

managerial

skills have

been strengthened

Head

teachers

understand

their role in

promoting learning

Trainees

have

acquired

skills to

support INSET

Trainees

have

acquired

skills to

support

child

centered pedagogy

Trainees

monitoring

skills have

been Strengthened

GENDER BASED TRAININGS

Gender-responsive pedagogy training

Gender-based activities training


Child-centered gender-based

activities/play-based activities

(Literacy/Numeracy)

Other trainings related to girls’

education



Section K: Perceived Impact of UNICEF trainings on intended outcomes or purposes.

I would like to make a statement about the impact of the trainings that you participated in. Can you tell me whether you agre e or disagree with me? I would like

you to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree. Using a scale of 1-5 where I mean strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree please rate the impact of the following on these outcomes

TYPE OF TRAINING PURPOSE OF TRAINING/PERFORMANCE OUTCOME

K11 K12 K13 K14 K15 K16 K17 K18 K19 K20

Trainees

are

equipped

with

knowledge

and skills

on [type of training]

Trainees

can operate

the mobile

school

report card

software

Trainees

have

acquired

leadership skills

Trainees

have

acquired

skills in the

supervision

of learning

Trainees

Management

skills and their

role in

promoting

learning have

been strengthened

Head

teachers

managerial

skills have

been

strengthened

Head

teachers

understand

their role in

promoting

learning

Trainees

have

acquired

skills to

support

INSET

Trainees

have

acquired

skills to

support

child

centered pedagogy

Trainees

monitoring

skills have

been strengthened

Training for District

Support Training Teams

on LfL, Early Grade

Reading (P1-P3),

Training on mSRC

Application (strengthen

access and utilization of

real time data)

Training to equip

prefects with leadership

skills

Training on numeracy

and literacy

Training to strengthen

skills to support INSET

to know what is expected of teachers



Training for Head

teachers/Circuit

Supervisors/DEOCs on

Supportive supervision

and leadership skills

Training on methods to

promote effective teaching and learning

Training of Head

teachers and teachers on school based assessment

Training on effective

implementation of

schools educational

goals in their learning

Keeping orderly

atmosphere in the school

Development of

leadership for learning

and leadership for

change manuals teaching

Training on Child

Friendly Schools (CFS)



Section L:Sustainability and accountability

L1 L2 L3

Do you think District trainers are skilled to

handle the training sessions?

1. Yes

2. No

Do you think the district officers are committed

to Capacity Building?

1. Yes

2. No

How are the District and Circuit officers building

the capacity of the staff?

1

Section M:Approaches to Training and Recommendations

M1 M2 M3 M4

Do you think the cascade method of

training is the most effective

technique for training teachers in the

GES?

1. Yes

2. No

Share at least two thoughts on the

cascade approach to teacher training,

which is used frequently in Ghana

What other approach would you

prefer in training the teachers?

Suggest at least 3 recommendations

on ways teacher training in Ghana

can be improved?


UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—C–1

Appendix C. Additional Tables from Quantitative

Surveys

Table C–1: Do teachers have adequate work space?

District Adequate space (%)

Builsa-North 90.0

Garu-Tempane 70.0

Karaga 60.0

Komenda-Edina-Eguafo 60.0

Kwahu North (Afram P 60.0

Lambussie Karni 76.9

Savelugu Nanton 70.0

Upper Denkyira West 70.0

Upper Manya Krobo 80.0

Wa East 42.9

Total (N=100) 67.4

Table C–2: What is the main source of water for the school?

District Borehole/well

(%) River/stream/rain/

other (%) Pipe (%)

Komenda-Edina-Eguafo- 30.0 0.0 70.0


Kwahu North (Afram Pl 30.0 50.0 20.0


Karaga 50.0 30.0 20.0

Savelugu Nanton 60.0 0.0 40.0

Builsa 100.0 0.0 0.0



Wa East 85.7 14.3 0.0

Total (N=100) 65.0 14.0 21.0

Table C–3: What is the type of sanitary facility available in your school?

District None (%) KVIP (%) Pit latrine

(%) Water closet

(%) Other

(%)

Komenda-Edina-Eguafo- 10.0 70.0 0.0 10.0 10.0

Upper Denkyira West 10.0 80.0 10.0 0.0 0.0

Kwahu North (Afram Pl 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Upper Manya Krobo 10.0 70.0 20.0 0.0 0.0


UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—C–1

Karaga 40.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 10.0

Savelugu-Nanton 0.0 90.0 10.0 0.0 0.0

Builsa 20.0 50.0 30.0 0.0 0.0

Garu-Tempane 20.0 40.0 30.0 10.0 0.0

Lambussie Karni 7.7 76.9 15.4 0.0 0.0

Wa East 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total (N=100) 12.0 72.0 12.0 2.0 2.0

Table C–4: What type of handwashing facility is available?

District Water & soap

(%)

Water without soap (%)

None/Other

(%)

Komenda-Edina-Eguafo- 70.0 30.0 0.0


Kwahu North (Afram Pl 60.0 20.0 20.0


Karaga 30.0 10.0 60.0

Savelugu-Nanton 70.0 20.0 10.0

Builsa 70.0 30.0 0.0



Wa East 42.9 0.0 57.1

Total (N=100) 56.0 17.0 27.0

Table C–5: Who conducted the training?

Training Total

N Teachers/ Heads (%)

DTST (%)

DEO (%)

Other (%)

Child Friendly Schools 64 2.1 21.9 60.7 15.3

Child-centered gender-based activities 60 10.3 10.8 65.3 13.7

Equity and fairness issues in schools 18 7.3 18.5 67.2 7.0



Orientation on equity issues in education 32 6.3 9.3 64.3 20.1

Other related trainings related to girls’ education 35 10.5 12.1 53.7 23.8


UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—–D1

Appendix D. UNICEF Ghana Education Programme

2012-2017: Output Mapping Document

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 District National Regional District Individual OrganizationalPolicy/

Institutional Levels

1 Multi‐Sectoral + District Educ Oversight Comms X X X X C2NECC, Multi‐Sectoral team at National/Districts and District Educ Oversight Comms X X X X X

1. Leadership, community entry and mobilisation skills for the development for ECD teams to carry out right age enrolment drives.

2 Joint Review Meeting on ECD X X X X C2 Regional/District ECD Coordinators X X X X X

1. Shared/adapt best practices to enhance teaching abilities of teachers at KG level (preparation and use of age‐approriate TLMs).2. Community entry, mobilisation skills development for ECD teams to carry out right age enrolment drives and effective supervision to support District/Attendants/Teachers.

3 Training Workshop for Examiners and Tutors X XUniversity and College of Education Tutors and Examiners

X X

Enhanced Knowledge through shared information/TLMs for better insight and for guidance/technical support for the development of KG Pre‐service Manual.

4Training of District Support Training Teams on Early Grade Reading using play/games X X X X X C3 District Training Support Teams X X

Enhanced knowledge and teaching abilities of teachers at KG level (preparation and use of age‐approriate TLMs)

5Training of Planning/Stats/Budget/trng officers on BNA X C2

Statisticians/Training/Planning and Budget Officers X X

To understand and improve skills for the development of district operational plans (esp. with KG lens)

6Training ECD Coord/Cir Sup/H'Teachers‐provide Supportive Supervision X X X X C3

Regional/District ECD Coordinators, Circuit Supervisors X X X X Supportive supervision relevant to ECD to improve

learning at KG levels

7Comprehensive in‐serv Training for KG Teachers and Attendants on Early Grade Reading X X X X X C3 KG Teachers and Attendants X X To enhance the teaching abilities of teachers at KG

level (preparation and use of age‐approriate TLMs)

8Educ study tour for SMC/PTA Executives to KG Model Schools X X X C2

KG Teachers/Attendants/SMCs/PTA Executives/DEOCs X X Enhanced skills and abilities to teach and support KG

children in classroom with talking walls

9 Sensization of Head teachers on ECD/KG issues X X X X C2 Head teachers X X Community entry, mobilisation skills development for ECD teams to carry out right age enrolment drives.

10 Community Sensitization X X X X X C2 Community members X X X Community entry, mobilisation skills development for ECD teams to carry out right age enrolment drives.

Output 18: Complementary basic education opportunities expanded to out‐of‐school children aged 8‐14 years in at least 5 deprived districts.

WHAT: List the Capacity‐building activities/ interventions (CBI) supported by UNICEF between

WHEN: Implementation time‐frameLEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION

Administrative LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION

Capacity‐Building BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CBI (Briefly comment on purpose, what did it

Output 17: Young children’s school readiness improved through increased access to quality pre‐school education programmes in at least 20 deprived districts.

#


January 2012 to the present under each OUTPUT

WHEN: Implementation time‐frame

WHO? Target audience

LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Administrative

LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Capacity‐Building BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CBI (Briefly

comment on purpose, what did it involve, how was it monitored, linkages with other outputs and

result achieved if relevant)



1 Training x x x x x

1st Batch Implementation (2012‐2015) 1) Savelugu 2) Afram Plains North 3)

CBE Facilitators, teachers of basic schools near CBE communities and Local Committee Members (LCM)

x x

Initial and refresher trainings for new and old facilitators, respectively on participatory gender‐sensitive pedagogy in mpther‐tongue numeracy and literacy. LCM are trained on leadership and their roles in supporting CBE. CBE is monitored by SfL, UNICEF, District Assembly and the GES.

2 Capacity building x x x x x " CBE community committees x x

Capacity building for CBE community committees on the purpose of the programme, importance of education, monitoring of the programme, etc

3 Development of materials x x x x " CBE learners, CBE Facilitators, x xCBE is taught in local languages so TLMs need to be developed in different languages used in target districts.

4 Printing TLMs x x x x x " CBE learners, CBE Facilitators, x xOnce the TLMs are developed in local langugages, they are printed to proide all the CBE facilitators and learners.

5 Development of strategy xCBE national committee, MoE, NSS (National Service Secretariat)

x x

The study was made on the use of NSPs (National Service Personnel) as CBE facilitators. Based on the UNICEF's experience in the CBE using NSPs, engagement strategy was developed for better posting system and implementation.



2 Capacity Building x x x x x C4DTST, Teachers, Headteachers, Circuit Supervisors

x x x x

To enable stakeholders to understand the concept of disability and its forms. To relate it to Inclusive Education (principles, standards and guidelines). Teachers also trained on early detection and referal of health problems in KG and lower primary pupils. Monitoring was done by the GES and UNICEF.

Output 19: Capacity of primary schools enhanced to provide appropriate care and support for children with special needs including children with disabilities in at least 20 deprived districts

#









#supported by UNICEF between


WHO? Target audience involve, how was it monitored, linkages with other outputs and


3 Sensitisation x x x x x C4Teachers, Headteachers, District Inclusive Education Team (DIET), Parents, NGOs, Regional & District Directors of Education.

x x x x X x

To increase awareness on the Inclusive Education Policy and to leverage for support from all stakeholders. Monitoring was done by GES and UNICEF

4 Screening x x x x x C2 Learners, DIET, headteachers, teachers x x

For early detection of disability amongst learners. Again, to build the capacity of DIET, headteachers and teachers in basic screening. Monitoring was done by GES and UNICEF.

5Development of IE related Materials including basic screening materials

x x x x x C2DIET,headteachers, teachers, learners, SpED (HQ) and CRDD (HQ)

x x x x x

To increase awareness on the Inclusive Education, copies of the IE Policy, Standards and Guidelines and costed implementation plan have been printed and distributed to key stakeholders. Additionally, UNICEF has supported the development and distribution of some screening materials includibg the snellen charts etc. Further, in building inclusive classrooms, UNICEF has supported the development of IE supplemenatry readers for basic schools. Monitoring was done by GES and UNICEF.



1Training of Regional and District Girls Education Officials in Child friendly schools and Social/community mobilisation

x x x x C2Regional and District Girls Education Officials

x x x

To carry out community sensitisation and enrolment of girls into Primary school. The islamic clerics were targeted because Islam was identified as one of the deterents to girls' education.

Output 20: Awareness of and demand for education increased among disadvantaged groups, especially girls, in at least 20 deprived districts;

#






LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Capacity‐Building

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CBI (Briefly comment on purpose, what did it involve, how was it monitored, linkages with other outputs and


2Orientation of Girls Education officers on Equity issues in Education

x x x x C2 Girls Education Officers x x

The purpose was to stregthen their understanding of equity,how to plan from an equity lens, identify who the marginalised are . It was monitorired through the normal GES process.

3 Orientation of Education Officials on C4D x C2District Officials‐ DDE, Schedule officers and other government departmets

x x xTo introduce the officials to C4D and its potentail benefits ( enrollment, rention and completion)

4Training of New Regional and District Girls Education Officials on their roles and responsibility ( including report writing )

x C2New Regional and District Girls Education officials

x xTo introduce the officials to their roles and responsibilities as girls education officers



Training x x x x C2 Regional Planning and Statistics Oifficers x x x

Training on Bottleneck Analysis for application in designing ADEOPs. UNICEF monitored the implementation of some of the activities that resulted in the devcelopment of ADEOPs in all focus districts.

2 Strengthen District oversight committees x C2 Regional Planning and Statistics Oifficers x xOrientation on their roles and responsibilities

3Strengthen District capacity for decentralisation

x C4 National, Regional and District Officials x x xTraining in leadership for change for National, Regional and District officials

Output 21: Enabling environment: Issues of exclusion in and quality of education explicitly addressed in national and sub‐national sector strategies and plans and timely and sufficient funds allocated

#






LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION Capacity‐Building

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CBI (Briefly comment on purpose, what did it involve, how was it monitored, linkages with other outputs and


4Support local governance and increase social accountability

x C4 District officials xTraining of Districts officials on how to stregthen community engagement in Education delivery



1Training GES Staff (DDEs/Frontiline Managers) on LfC/ Pre‐tertiary Professional Development/ Management

X X X X X C4

Key National GES Staff Directors‐(CRDD, BED, SPED, ECD, Inspectorate, G&C, SHEP), District Directors, the 4 District Frontline Managers (Planning, HR, AD Supervision, …),

X XPupose was to orient them to the new Pre‐Tertiary Professional Decvvelopment Policy and their role in its implementation

2

Training for District Support Training Teams on LfL, Early Grade Reading (P1‐P3), Child‐centred gender‐based activities/play‐based activities (Literacy/Numeracy)

X X X X X C4 District Schedule Officers (Training, PRO, Basic, Circuit Supervisors, Selected Heads)…

X X To equip teachers with knowldge and skills on delivery of early grade literacy effectively

3 Training on on mSRC Application (stregthen access and utilisation of real time data)

X X X X X

KEEA, GT, SN, APN, KE, WW, UWA, WE, UDW, UMK

National/Regional Level: Statisticians, IT, EMIS, UNICEF, Consultants. District level: DDEs, AD Supervision, Statisticians, IT, Headteachers, Teachers Others: WVI, FHI360, Social Impact

X X To equip officials how to operate the mobile school report card.

4Training Workshop for Primary Prefects in Leadership Skills X X X X X C4 School pupils X X To equip the prefects with leadership skills

5Training for Headteachers/Circuit Supervisors/DEOCs on Supportive supervision and leadership skills

X X X X X C4 Headteachers, Circuit Supervisors X X To equip headteachers and circuit supervisors in supervision of learning.

6 Training on Child Friendly Schools (CFS) X X

9 of C2 districts Garu‐

Tempane,

Headteachers and PTA X X X To equip them with Knowlledge on CFS and skills on how to make their schools child friendly

7Development of leadership for learning and leadership for change manuals x x x C2

Mid management staff ( leadership for Change ) and Headteachers/circuit supervisors ( leadership for learning)

x x x

Leadership for Change is intended to strengthen management skills while the Leadership for learning is to help headteachers understand their role in promoting learning.

8Training of Headteachers and circuit superviors on leadership for learning x x x C4 Headteachers, Circuit Supervisors x

Leadership for learning training s to help headteachers understand their role in promoting learning.

9Training of GES management in leadership for change x C4

Regional Directors District Directors , Divisional Directors and Regional manager x x x Leadership for Change is intended to strengthen

management skills

10Training Headteachers and teacher on child centred pedagogy x x x C4 Headateachers and teachers x Strengthening their skills to support INSET and child

centered pedagogy

11Training of Headteachers and teachers on school based assessment x x x C2 Headateachers and teacher x Strengthening their skills on monitoring

Output 22: Quality of Teaching and Learning Improved through the Increased availability of Trained Teachers and Teaching/Learning Materials and the Practice of Child‐Centred, Activity‐based Teachi

#









13Training of teachers on Child centred and gender responsive pedagogy x C4 Teachers x Strengthening their skills to support INSET and to

know what was expected of the teachers



1Training upper primary school Headteachers, Teacher and Circuit supervisors

x x C2 Head teachers, Circuit Supervisors, x

To mainstream eSHEP issues (DRR, Food & Nutrition, Guidance & Counselling, HIV/AIDS, Physical Education and sports) and positive discipline in schools. Closely linked to Output 19 and 20. Monitored by UNICEF and GES.

2 Training of District Officials on SHEP x x x x x C3 District SHEP committee members x xTo equip them with knowledge on eSHEP issues

3Training of pupils on Peer to Peer counselling

x x C4 Teachers and pupils xTo equip them with knowledge on peer counselling

4 Develop Safe School resource pack x x SHEP division xTo provide guidaance on how to make schools safe

1 Central Upper Denkyi2 Eastern Upper Manya3 Upper East Builsa North4 Upper East Builsa South*5 Northern Karaga6 Northern Kpandai7 Upper West Wa East8 Upper West Wa West9 Eastern Kwahu Afram

10 Eastern Kwahu Afram11 Central KEEA12 Upper East Garu Tempan13 Upper West Lambuissie K14 Northern Savelugu-Nan

* BN/APN split into 2 each, hence districts became 14 from 12

14 Districts (selected in 2013: started impl. 2014)

Category 2

All 20 Districts Categor

y 4

Output 23: Healthy, safe and gender‐sensitive learning environments established in primary schools in at least 20 deprived districts

#









1 Central Asikuma Odo2 Eastern Upper West A3 Volta Krachie East4 Volta North Dayi5 Northern Tolon6 Greater Accra Ga East

10 Eastern Kwahu Afram11 Central KEEA12 Upper East Garu Tempan13 Upper West Lambuissie K14 Northern Savelugu-Nan

5 Districts (selected in 2015 started implementation 2016-….)

Category 3

(was added to commence imlementation in 2014-….)

Category 1

American Institutes for Research Capacity Development Report for the Evaluation/Development of the UNICEF Ghana Education Programme—E–1

Appendix E. UNICEF Ghana Education Programme

Evaluation: Terms of Reference & Evaluation Criteria

evaluation report of the unicef ghana education programme ... · unicef ghana education...

Documents